Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 24



24 March 2008

 * I think this stub creation sails very close to a violation of WP:POINT and WP:NOT. Geo Swan (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Still a lot of unsourced claims there, which I have tagged, and I'm not sure that discoverthenetworks.org is a reliable source.  Corvus cornix  talk  20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I too wondered about Discover the Networks. Our article about it says it is one of the stable of online publications edited by the team which edits FrontPage Magazine.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: -- the deleting admin created a stub, which has since been expanded. I provided additional references to address the concerns of most of the cn tags.
 * Note: -- The deleting admin has not restored the previous edit history. When I participate in RfAs I ask every candidate for administrator whether they are committing themselves to accountable decision-making.  I ask them if they are committing themselves to remember that they are human, and fallible, and will be willing to consider they may have been mistaken, whenever someone has questions about one of their decisions, and will be willing to openly acknowledge when they made a mistake.  If the wikipedia is going to cultivate a culture of respectful decision-making, based on civil exchange of reasoned discussions this is what is required of administrators.  I am sorry to report that IMO the responses of the deleting administrator, in this particular case, fall far short of this standard.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse - As an anon pointed out earlier: "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion ". Further, restoring the edit history of an attack page is not the way we want to go. Creating a new, clean article that adheres to WP:V and WP:N would be the way to go here, not bringing back a page with unsourced negative content in its history. Doc has acted in the proper manner, and does not need to be piled on as is happening here. -- Kesh (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An attack page? I'm sorry, the article looks virtually the same as it did at deletion, except now the facts have little numbers after them. I'm not sure how you can really justify calling the article an "attack page" - could you perhaps explain? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the article isn't about him; it's about the accusations against him. Regardless of whether or not they're sourced, it's a litany of negative accusations with zero biographical content. The page only exists to make him look bad, because we don't have any other information about him. That's the essence of an attack page. -- Kesh (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * comment When someone encounters a page like this it doesn't hurt to take 5 minutes to google it. And if they feel that they dont have time to do that, they should leave a polite note with a relevant active project that they are deleting an article related to their subject. Deletion of such content makes sense if one can't find any sources. When the sources are easy to locate it doesn't hurt to take a few minutes to add them in. This isn't a call for overturning because at this point I don't see what would be gained by overturning the difs since the matter has now been handled. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Polite note? It had a polite note on it for months - fat lot of use that did. I know in an ideal world where there were no real-world consequences to out actions and all we have to worry about was not offending fellow wikipedians, then the onus would be on the challenger to fix it. Well, sorry, no. If I encounter an unsourced negative bio, I will excise the material and move on the the next. If the unsourced negative stuff can't be excised I will delete. (I've deleted about 30 or so in the last 48 hours.) It is absolutely essential we move towards a zero-tolerance approach for unsourced negative material. If someone wants to come and ask for underletion later, with a willingness to sources it, then fine. See User:Doc glasgow/BLP deletion for my willingness to undelete. However, long term we simply need to reduce the number of bios to a level where we can maintain them against the possibility of unverified material.--Docg 18:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all fine and dandy, but couldn't you at least take the 20 seconds it takes to do a quick search for sources on a BLP before you delete it? And if you find sources, maybe leave a note at the right Wikiproject that they're free to recreate the article with those sources you found? Or, while we're at it, improve the article yourself, maybe. Wouldn't that be the Wiki thing to do? :) --Conti|✉ 18:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If more people were patrolling and removing stuff from unreferenced BLPs, then maybe we'd have the luxury of doing stuff to help in recreating lost material. But right now, the pressing need is for removal not worrying too much about collateral damage. I just wish people would be more anxious to help with getting unreferenced allegations off wikipedia than moaning that those who do don't spend more time fixing things for retention. Our inclusionist guns are facing in the wrong direction.--Docg 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Overturn reading the cached article, I don't see how this is an attack article and so doesn't qualify (IMO) under G10. Additionally, the deleting admin's behavior in this has been pointy at best. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }