| Revision as of 07:30, 3 March 2007 editJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,657 editsm →So who are all those people?: sp← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:41, 3 March 2007 edit undoKendrick7 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,315 edits →So who are all those people?: Special:Whatlinkshere could helpNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| ::There is something to be said in both cases for admins with enough ] to rise above the will of the ]. A rule of thumb against ] wouldn't be a ''terrible'' thing, or as the great theologian ] put it ''if you can't say something nice, don't say nothin' at all''. Perhaps some exception for when the person at issue is connected to a notable "event" greater than themselves (for say, terrorists or spies, but not nurse gropers). -- ]<sup>]</sup> 07:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC) | ::There is something to be said in both cases for admins with enough ] to rise above the will of the ]. A rule of thumb against ] wouldn't be a ''terrible'' thing, or as the great theologian ] put it ''if you can't say something nice, don't say nothin' at all''. Perhaps some exception for when the person at issue is connected to a notable "event" greater than themselves (for say, terrorists or spies, but not nurse gropers). -- ]<sup>]</sup> 07:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::: That seems like an unworkable standard or at minimum something that would need a lot of clarifcation (for example, a large part of the Brandt article is about his accomplishements, the Frost article also had positive elements, the only one that is indisputably nasty of all the one's SV gave as examples was Peppers). Furthermore, would a Thumper clause affect ] or ], or ] (nota bene, I'm not comparing these three people to each other or saying they are similar but in fact attempting to give three very different examples all of which could plausibly be included under some form of Thumper clause). ] 07:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC) | ::: That seems like an unworkable standard or at minimum something that would need a lot of clarifcation (for example, a large part of the Brandt article is about his accomplishements, the Frost article also had positive elements, the only one that is indisputably nasty of all the one's SV gave as examples was Peppers). Furthermore, would a Thumper clause affect ] or ], or ] (nota bene, I'm not comparing these three people to each other or saying they are similar but in fact attempting to give three very different examples all of which could plausibly be included under some form of Thumper clause). ] 07:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Well, in your example of ], I didn't get the impression he was either indicted or tried, merely that there were these criminal "accusations" floating around (unlike Dahmer, who isn't a Living Person anyway). ] and ] makes clear both are connected to "larger events". -- ]<sup>]</sup> 07:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Whack a bio == | == Whack a bio == | ||
Revision as of 07:41, 3 March 2007
ShortcutsFirst draft
I've put up the first draft of a proposal to delete marginally notable BLPs upon request of the subject of the article. It's rough and it needs hammering out, so all input is welcome. In particular, we need to find a working definition of "marginal notability," so that subjects who are clearly significant public figures are excluded from the provision.
As I see it, we're badly in need of a policy along these lines to avoid future rows over BLPs that cause distress to the subject and a lot of frustration for the editors involved. I'm thinking of BLPs such as Brian Peppers (now deleted), Brian Chase (now deleted), Gregory Lauder-Frost (now deleted), Sam Vaknin (now deleted), Rachel Marsden, Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein, and Angela Beesley. SlimVirgin 03:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tough one, SM.... We need to come up with some criteria to establish marginal notability. Maybe a Google test, a search on Lexis-Nexis, Newspaperarchive.com and the like? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't made up my mind about this sort of thing. But from my reading of the current draft, Gregory Lauder-Frost, Daniel Brandt, Rachel Marsden would not be subject to this given the number of sources on each. As it is written it seems redundant to WP:BIO since it essentially says that if someone is not-notable and they object they can their article deleted. JoshuaZ 05:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would certainly object this proposal. --Parker007 05:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions for marginal notability.
The most obvious way of measuring marginal notability is if there is less than some number (say X) sources that would fit the WP:BIO criterion. Now, as I read it, WP:BIO is essentially two independent reliable sources. So maybe X =3 or x=4? JoshuaZ 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
No, just no.
Precedent is against this. If a person wants it deleted they can take it to AfD. Otherwise every scammer and huckster out there can use deletion as a club when the content of their article doesn't go their way. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seems to go against Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. -- Kendrick7 06:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
So who are all those people?
It would help if Slim gave us a backgrounder (without having to dig thru a dozen AFDs) as to why a precedent should be set based on who these people are and what their article said about them that they didn't like. -- Kendrick7 06:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, skirting BLP with this, but I'll try to handle the cases I'm aware of(if I say anything grossly wrong feel free to correct me). I can't guaranteee NPOV in my descriptions of what occured, but I will try (excepting one obvious case where I really can't, but it isn't the subject of the article) Daniel Brandt I think everyone is aware of the ongoing issues. Gregory Lauder-Frost was a minor British politician whose biography contained accusations of criminal acts that were reasonably well sourced. Frost and his friends attempted to repeatedly delete the article in a highly disruptive fashion and some users sympathized with his demand of privacy. The final straw was an email claiming that Frost was sick and dying and that the Misplaced Pages article was adding to his suffering and possibly helping kill him. This pushed enough editors over to the side for deletion that it was deleted by a slim majority. (Editorial remark, the Frost's illness was never confirmed as of now Frost is still alive). Brian Peppers was an individual whose article was about an internet phenomenon- Peppers had a strange looking face and his picture along with claims that he was a sex offender became widely circulated among the sorts of stupid annoying people who like to vandalize Misplaced Pages and engage in things like YTMND nonsense and feel a need to make up for their lack of lives by making fun of someone who they think looks strange. After many AfDs, and requests for deletion by people who claimed to represent Peppers' family, Jimbo deleted the article and declared that it would not be undeleted in less than a year. Recently, the 1 year came up, a DRV was held, and the DRV was closed with a snow for staying deleted. Note that in the Peppers case, it was not clear that he in fact met WP:BIO anyways. JoshuaZ 06:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is something to be said in both cases for admins with enough WP:SENSE to rise above the will of the hoi polloi. A rule of thumb against detraction wouldn't be a terrible thing, or as the great theologian Thumper put it if you can't say something nice, don't say nothin' at all. Perhaps some exception for when the person at issue is connected to a notable "event" greater than themselves (for say, terrorists or spies, but not nurse gropers). -- Kendrick7 07:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- That seems like an unworkable standard or at minimum something that would need a lot of clarifcation (for example, a large part of the Brandt article is about his accomplishements, the Frost article also had positive elements, the only one that is indisputably nasty of all the one's SV gave as examples was Peppers). Furthermore, would a Thumper clause affect Kent Hovind or Jeffrey Dahmer, or Fred Singer (nota bene, I'm not comparing these three people to each other or saying they are similar but in fact attempting to give three very different examples all of which could plausibly be included under some form of Thumper clause). JoshuaZ 07:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, in your example of Gregory Lauder-Frost, I didn't get the impression he was either indicted or tried, merely that there were these criminal "accusations" floating around (unlike Dahmer, who isn't a Living Person anyway). Special:Whatlinkshere/Kent_Hovind and Special:Whatlinkshere/Fred_Singer makes clear both are connected to "larger events". -- Kendrick7 07:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- That seems like an unworkable standard or at minimum something that would need a lot of clarifcation (for example, a large part of the Brandt article is about his accomplishements, the Frost article also had positive elements, the only one that is indisputably nasty of all the one's SV gave as examples was Peppers). Furthermore, would a Thumper clause affect Kent Hovind or Jeffrey Dahmer, or Fred Singer (nota bene, I'm not comparing these three people to each other or saying they are similar but in fact attempting to give three very different examples all of which could plausibly be included under some form of Thumper clause). JoshuaZ 07:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is something to be said in both cases for admins with enough WP:SENSE to rise above the will of the hoi polloi. A rule of thumb against detraction wouldn't be a terrible thing, or as the great theologian Thumper put it if you can't say something nice, don't say nothin' at all. Perhaps some exception for when the person at issue is connected to a notable "event" greater than themselves (for say, terrorists or spies, but not nurse gropers). -- Kendrick7 07:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Whack a bio
This is an unworkable proposal for two reasons:
- It does not provide any operational definition of "marginal notability." Whether it is even possible to provide such a definition is debatable.
- It suggests the creation of a new Misplaced Pages game, called "Whack a bio", where administrators can essentially undermine deletion procedures if they manage to do so within a 72 hour period. The proposal even suggests the protection against recreation if the admin successfully "whacks" the bio.
If we wish to take the subject's opinion into account in AfDs, we are free to do so: there is no need for a new policy. It might help to make the fact that some editors feel this is a legitimate reason for deletion in some cases explicit in the existing deletion guidelines, in case it isn't already. I think this is the only way to deal with this issue: allow each editor to weigh the arguments on a case-by-case basis, including the subject's opinion if they desire to do so.--Eloquence* 06:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)