Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:User At Work/Pols under investigation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. --Core desat 07:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:User At Work/Pols under investigation
This page is a blatant WP:BLP violation, since it is comprised almost entirely of unreferenced negative information concerning living people. An administrator improperly removed a speedy deletion notice from this page, claiming that "all info is sourced in the respective articles". This claim is both clearly factually incorrect, since some of the articles are red links, and irrelevant, since links to Wikipedia articles cannot themselves be employed as sources for WP:BLP purposes. All negative or otherwise controversial information concerning living people appearing anywhere in Wikipedia must be accompanied by direct references to reliable sources which substantiate it. John254 16:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is userspace. Userspace should be given slightly more freedom. If he wishes to express his opinion in his own userspace, who are we to stop him?-- Sef rin gle Talk 16:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Biographies_of_living_persons expressly states that the prohibition on unreferenced and inadequately referenced negative information concerning living people applies to user pages:"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages."
 * John254 17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There is no inaccurate information on the page. I'm workshopping here. If people feel very strongly that it needs references (other than linking to the Wikipedia entries, which are referenced), I'll add them in. But again, there is no inacurate information. I'm not even trying to express any opinion here, just keep track of the mess of corrupt politicians. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel that John254 is attacking my userpage because he disagrees with my edits of his contributions. --User At Work 17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete While there are references, they're to Google search pages, leaving us to hunt around to make sure the sources are legitimate. Normally I'd be willing to take such chances, but not when living people are involved.  If the references are changed to actual reliable sources, I might be willing to change to keep.  Blueboy96 19:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Indeed. At the time I requested that this page be speedily deleted, there were no references at all.   Only after the speedy deletion request was wrongfully declined, and I nominated the page for deletion , did User At Work begin to add "references".  Actually, he didn't add references, he added links to google searches for each of people named in his unsourced list of accusations, apparently without any attempt to ascertain whether the searches produced reliable sources as results.  Following the link for "reference" 75, for instance, will lead right back to User:User At Work/Pols under investigation itself!.  The article associated with "reference" 75 is a red link, so the argument that "the references are in the articles", as unconvincing as it would be if there were an article, is, in the absence of an article, utterly without merit.   Adding these bogus "references" to User:User At Work/Pols under investigation to obstruct the deletion of unreferenced material is quite disruptive. John254 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please have some minor amount of good faith. For one thing, you know all the information there is true. I put those quicklinks up because I didn't have the time to put 100 links in today. I would welcome you replacing the forwards to the actual links, if you would like to contribute. Since it seems you would rather delete my work and threaten me with blocking, I will likely have to do that myself. Which I would be happy to do, since it's in my userspace, but I would hope that others would have the respect not to threaten my userspace with deletion. I am starting to be convinced you are interesting in being punitive towards me. --User At Work 22:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it out of search results. It's a legitimate usage of userspace to work on material for inclusion in the encyclopedia. However, it's not a legitimate usage of userspace to publicize material that doesn't meet our standards (such as BLP). If the user will take steps to see that this material is not leaking into, e.g., Google, as it now is, then there's no problem (to do this, you can just save a blank revision on top of the material, or use HTML comment tags around the page and preview without them). If the user is not willing to do this, we can and should keep the material out of search engines by deleting it as the nominator suggests. In either case, there are obviously going to be quite enough eyes on the material at present. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How does this not meet BLP standards? --User At Work 14:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unsourced (no, really, right now it's unsourced. Dynamic Google search results are not sourcing.) negative information about living people. -- Gavia immer (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, with the condition that everything be cited It does look like UAW (hmm, what an abbreviation) is working hard on adding sources; and it does not look like the main accuser is challenging the actual facts of the list. Given that, it is good enough for user space, as a work under development. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm the one who declined the speedy request on this page. At the time, it contained no references but it was clearly reporting information that is already in the respective subjects' articles and properly sourced.  I see that User At Work has made a good faith effort to add the citations anyway.  As far as I'm concerned, this should be speedy closed as a bad faith nomination by John254. Spike Wilbury ♫  talk  18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If there weren't BLP issues at the bottom of this, I'd agree with Spike. But our sourcing standards for living people are particularly strict--and Google searches don't come close to meeting that standard.  The concept is a good idea, though--just get better sources. Blueboy96 21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've fixed nearly all the references now.--User At Work 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I mention the analogous page: User:User_At_Work/Wives. (better sourced, most of it references to actual WP articles, not redlinks. Still, I do not think having links to such pages is appropriate, as the only legitimate use is as a scratch pad. DGG (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.