Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Audra Williams (2nd nomination)


 * Since when, exactly, is hiding paragraphs that need citations acceptable process on Wikipedia? That's what the fact template is for; as far as I know, it's never been permissible to hide uncited paragraphs that are already tagged as needing citations. Bearcat 03:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actully, it is acceptable on wikipedia to remove unsourced material entirely. I'm sorry but if you're arguing that unsourced material should be retained indefinitely you're not going to get very far.Homey 03:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * About as far as you'll get claiming that the statute of limitations on unsourced statements in an article is only twelve days long, I'm willing to bet. Would you kindly show me where I used the word "indefinitely"? Because I really don't see where I suggested any such thing. Bearcat 03:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can provide citations for the material in question please do so. Homey 03:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When I have any interest in the article beyond the fact that it's apparently causing a significant number of people to lose their freaking minds, I'll let you know. Process is process; you don't get to make up your own special rules or put the entire burden of citation onto a completely random choice of Wikipedia editor just because an AFD less than two weeks ago didn't give you the result you wanted. Bearcat 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So for how long is it acceptable to have unsourced material in an article? Please provide a citation for your answer. Homey 04:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be more interested in seeing your citation for "twelve days" as the limit. Bearcat 04:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said there was a 12 day limit or, indeed, any limit. You are implying there is one but you've provided no evidence. So tell me, if 12 days is too short, what is the limit?Homey 04:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't say there was a 12-day limit; you simply imposed a 12-day limit. Given the precedent established by any other article I've ever seen with the fact tag on it, the bare minimum is at least two or three months. You know, to give the relevant editors sufficient time to actually do something about it. After just 12 days, it's not even reasonable or legitimate to assume that the relevant/interested editors even know that the cite tags are there yet, because even established editors sometimes go two weeks without editing or visiting Wikipedia if they're busy with other stuff. Bearcat 04:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok then, if we wait 2 1/2 months and sources have still not been provided will you agree to the article's deletion?Homey 04:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm never going to support deletion as such, because I do consider her a legitimate keep, but I'd have no problem with the removal of unsourced statements from the article after a reasonable period of time. Bearcat 04:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your support of waiting on the cite tag, seems to be disputed by this --Rob 05:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not one to argue with Jimbo. Well Bearcat, there you have it, immediate removal of unsourced information is in order. Homey 05:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Even that doesn't specify a time frame. Of course we don't want to leave unsourced statements in the article indefinitely; we still have to give the interested editors a reasonable amount of time to know that there's an issue in the first place and to fix it. There's also, IMO, a significant difference between claims that can be charitably described as straining credulity (e.g. "she was abducted by space aliens"), which even I'll simply remove, and ones that are obviously likely to be true, or even known to be true, but just haven't actually had a source provided yet. (I mean, come on, when it comes to the paragraph about the Babble Strike board that arose as a reaction to Audra's dismissal from Rabble, what more source does anybody need than an actual link to the actual Babble Strike board itself?) Bearcat 05:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Even that doesn't specify a time frame " Well bearcat, I think "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced" means there is *no* time frame and that unsourced material should be removed immediately (or do you think "removed, aggressively" means wait three months?)Homey 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say this one more time. My position is that we still have to give the interested editors a reasonable amount of time to know that there's an issue in the first place and to fix it. My position is also that some of the things tagged as unsourced in this article were not actually unsourced (what the hell more source is needed for the Babble Strike stuff than the Babble Strike board itself?). My position is that there's a big difference between "unsourced" in the sense of that's rather hard to believe unless a source is shown and unsourced in the sense of just doesn't actually have a specific footnote provided yet, but it is a known fact. My position is that I'm not going to be swayed from that just because Jimbo thinks differently. And my position is that I'm not going to debate this any further. Bearcat 05:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)