Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 Procedural Close, as MfD is a process for the deletion of entire pages, not for the deletion of specific sections of those pages. The removal of specific sections of text, either to split them into other pages or to delete that text, is an editorial discussion best held elsewhere. The Nominator's concerns are well taken, but the proper venue for those concerns is Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons or, alternatively, Village pump (policy). UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
The section has been under dispute since October 2007. The section is advisory, and is advising on the question of notability. The description of the difference between policy and guideline is "policies are considered a standard that all users should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." In addition I would dispute that the paragraph has enough community consensus to be policy. The fact that it was challenged, and after a largely undisputed discussion, moved to Notability (people), shows that it does not have the clear and widespread community consensus to be declared policy. It's a notability issue, and one that people can properly question and debate and put forward arguments for why a particular person should have a standalone article (for example Edmund Hillary, Tenzing Norgay, Robert Peary, Mark David Chapman, and Nick Leeson.) It properly does not belong in a serious policy on the issues surrounding articles on living people. That policy should be for the serious matters than can get Wikipedia into trouble. The ethos of the encyclopedia is that we debate notability and use past community consensus as a guideline to inclusion, but that we do not have to stand by past consensus if there are justifiable reasons for not following it. As such the encyclopedia doesn't get fixed in a conservative state which favours the consensus of the Wikipedians of the day. Unless - as with the bulk of BLP - there are pressing reasons why policy should be enforced (and there is not with the One Event situation - as evidenced by existing articles on people notable for only one event) we should guide and advise, but not enforce. The section is more appropriately placed with the Notability (people) guideline and removed from BLP policy.  SilkTork  *What's YOUR point? 11:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy close this is an entirely unsuitable venue for discussions of policy. As explicitly stated Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2008 (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.