Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:03, 21 January 2010

Note re deletions

I am deleting articles that have been listed as unsourced for over 6 months, and have had no substantive edits for 6 months either. I am happy for any admin to restore these articles, so long as some kind of source is added such that the article complies with WP:BLP. Kevin (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The next batch of articles are here - User:Rdm2376/Unwatched. Any that receive attention before I get there will be left alone. Kevin (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP Deletions

Hi, I'm a bit concerned that you are deleting BLPs based on a criteria of "Unwatched and unsourced biography that has not been edited for at least 6 months". Has this process been discussed anywhere? I agree that these pages are an issue, but I'm also not sure that bypassing the usual deletion processes is the right way to handle them. Surely if the articles are in a state of disrepair then applying a Prod to them and allowing time for objection or improvement before deletion is reasonable. Camw (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If the PROD process required that articles would pass all aspects of WP:BLP (i.e. be sourced) then I would use that process. As it is, these articles have been tagged in excess of 6 months and have zero sources, and I feel that deletion is in keeping with the spirit of the BLP policy. Kevin (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be discussed with a broader audience before you proceed. How many articles meet this deletion criteria out of interest please? Camw (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many qualify. At a guess I would say that at least 20000 meet the criteria I am using, but I don't have solid numbers at this stage. Do you think discussion with a wider audience will actually achieve a positive result? My experience says otherwise. Kevin (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know for certain that it will achieve a positive result but I do believe that proceeding with deleting these article will generate discussion on one of the noticeboards at some point, so addressing it and letting the community have input before taking the action would hopefully generate less drama in the end. The BLP policy on deletion does say that if the article isn't policy compliant then it should be improved and rectified and only deleted if that is not possible. There is a sub project over at the Football Wikiproject that is attempting to reference relevant BLPs, of which there are still around 5000 at the moment - it is slow going as there are only a couple of people working on it but thousands of articles have already either been referenced or deleted, so it is possible for improvement to happen to these articles. Would a project with a focus of doing what the football project does on a wider scale be useful maybe? Camw (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly doubt it. My eventual aim is for all biographies to have at least a source for the main claim to notability. in the past I have tried PROD, but often it is removed without improvement; and tagging as unsourced, which is even less successful. There is a project around somewhere which has also achieved little. My hope is that this will actually achieve something in furtherance of this goal. Kevin (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the other project but I can confirm the Football project is making progress and referencing a large number of articles to at least have a source for the main claim to notability - it would be a shame if the articles that are being working on are deleted before we get a chance to even check them out - most of the articles are stubs but there are actually some articles that are a decent start, they just need the referencing. Please consider stopping the deletion for now. Camw (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If I honestly though that there was a better way, I would. Kevin (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Will you not consider consulting the community for their thoughts at least? I know you don't think anything positive will come of it, but there will be discussion, either initiated by you or by somebody else and I feel it would be better if you could explain your reasoning and process from the outset rather than people upset about the deletions starting it. Camw (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Hi Kevin. Just thought I'd inquire about these... "Unwatched and unsourced biography that has not been edited for at least 6 months"... Has there been a change to the deletion policy that I'm not aware of? Paul Erik 04:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See above. To answer your question, no there has been no change that I am aware of. Kevin (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I too would suggest that this be discussed with more of the community before you proceed. Thanks, Paul Erik 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you are not the only one. Kevin (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And so....? Paul Erik 04:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Matias

You deleted this article, for example. I just did a quick search and found that it can be easily sourced with articles in The Village Voice and Technology Review. It should not have been deleted, in my view. Paul Erik 04:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously sourcing is preferable to deletion. But nobody is doing it, leaving this solution. Kevin (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You could be doing it if you wanted to. In the amount of time that even this brief discussion took place a number of articles could have been improved. Just because it is a big job doesn't make the easy way the right way. You say nobody is doing it, but I have mentioned to you that at least one Wikiproject there are people doing it, including many that I have personally referenced, or gone through the established procedure for deletion myself. If prod hasn't worked on an article I haven't found references for, then I've taken it to AfD and not a single one has survived AfD where references were not found - in my experience the current deletion system works. Camw (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The list I'm working from has over 60,000 articles on it. Your method just does not scale up to that. Would you find it less disruptive if I listed them all at AfD? Kevin (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The list the project I'm talking about reached 8000 at one point, it is now down to around 5000 (even with new articles being created all the time) with 3-4 editors involved. 60000 is not insurmountable with enough editors participating. Break it down into Biographies by country or profession and people interested in either could work on chunks of the list. I am aware your question about AfD is rhetorical in nature, but if you have followed WP:BEFORE (specifically point 9) on each article nominated then I have no problem with it. Camw (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop what you are doing. You just deleted Ion Atanasiu which was not even unsourced. A source was listed and the {{BLPunsourced}} tag was incorrect. Paul Erik 04:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you are correct. I guess it's a good thing I didn't use a bot. Kevin (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What is your preference for the forum for a wider discussion of all this? Paul Erik 05:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFARB? Less cynically, I have no preference. Kevin (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To the dramaboard, then.... WP:ANI. Paul Erik 05:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lovely work

Keep at it. Your deletions are long overdue. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Gotta do something. Kevin (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? What's the good of "doing something" just for the sake of "doing something"? Surely it's more important to get it right than it is to simply ask people to tick the right box. Smears with sources are bad. Accurate articles without sources are not. What's the point of doing something just for the sake of doing something? I just don't get it. Guettarda (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the feedback on ANI indicates that this was a step beyond WP:BOLD - though the problem and good faith nature here are not in dispute.

Please stop and wait until the legitimacy of this approach are discussed in the usual *cough* *gak* place.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually quite encouraged by the discussion there. You've been here long enough to know that the "community" could not find consensus on what day of the week it is, let alone the legitimacy of something important like this. Kevin (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see pretty strong support at the AN/I thread. Esp. among older users. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't. Perhaps tomorrow morning a rough consensus will emerge, but there's certainly enough dissent at the moment that "This exceeds community agreement on WP:BOLD" is true. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately I'm not overly concerned with the ANI discussion. I've stopped for now because I'm off to some RL happenings. Kevin (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get overly pushy, but I am personally concerned on my own, and sufficiently by a lack of uniform support on ANI, and I'd like to make sure you don't just start up again when RL happenings cease. I believe that would be abusive of the community consensus process.

As I said, a real consensus could emerge on ANI, etc. That's fine. But I really would strongly urge you not to proceed until some consensus emerges (there or elsewhere).

WP:BOLD and IAR cover what you've done; ignoring that there's a dispute over it and some significant objections now would be disruptive, going forwards. BRD applies - You were bold, it's been pushed back against, it's time to discuss.

Nothing disasterous will happen if you wait 2 days (or whatever) to see what happens with the ANI discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do keep in mind that some of the articles on that list are in fact referenced (sometimes sloppily) - just mis-tagged. From looking through some of them (and I reffed some too) it appears that from a quarter to half+ of them initially had no sources and got tagged, then someone added sources but didn't bother removing the tag. So IF you're gonna do this (and I'm necessarily agreeing with this course of action), at least be careful.radek (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Which list are you referring to? I'm being as careful as I can, hence my choosing not to use a bot or some semi-automated process. Kevin (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In trying to ref some of these BLPs I was working off of this one . For example, the article on John Poindexter is clearly referenced although all the references aren't collected in a section called "references". Just pointing it out.radek (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for userfying or undeletion

After seeing the ANI complaint against your mass deletion of BLP articles, I noticed that you deleted Lee Hun Jai who is a very notable politician (served as Finance Minister of South Korea) to have been featured on NYT times many occasions. Not to mention about Korean sources, you deleted it without checking, so I request you to undelete the article or at least userfy it into my usage page. Thanks.--Caspian blue 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to undelete, so long as the sources are added. Kevin (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just... slow down. I've undeleted a batch already - put sources in half, and added the others to my personal watchlist (so I can do them in the morning). DS (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should post my working list and give you all 30 minutes head start. Whatever works, you know? Kevin (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that DS not undelete any that they are not prepared to source that very instant . As any article thus undeleted is still a problem and undeletion without it being immediately fixed is a BLP policy violation. DS surely has the best of intentions but may be hit by a bus tonite. In which case those articles will never get sourced and we're back to square one. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Very few buses pass through my apartment. DS (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Point stands. Please do not undelete any that you do not immediately fix or userify, or they are subject to redeletion. ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar time

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For encouraging change in the plague that is unsourced BLP articles on Misplaced Pages, I award you this barnstar! JBsupreme (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

		The BLP Barnstar
		Oh godz YES!! I never give out barnstars, but you totally earn this one for taking the initiative in dealing with a very serious BLP problem indeed. Truly, you have cojones de latón, sir! - Alison 08:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Pug Barnstar
		BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO!! I was discussing your noble actions with my wife over a continental breakfast and we both agreed that this is a thoroughly, jolly good, and positive action. Keep up the good work and illegitimi non carborundum... Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For doing the right thing, knowing it would be unpopular with the legions of the irresponsible. Bali ultimate (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		You've helped clean one of the dirtiest parts of the wiki. Well done. Way to step up and take initiative. Beats talk talk any day. ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

		Home-Made Barnstar
		Hell yes! Fantastic work!! The reaction was to be expected—typical cluelessness and irresponsibility—but you pushed on anyway to do the right thing. Good for you! You've made us damn proud! Lara 02:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternative with same effect

A proposal I made on ANI is being discussed there and you might want to weigh in if you're so inclined, though the conversation might well end up here (where it's already been copied). I think this gets at the problem you are (thankfully) trying to address but will probably elicit less objections, allow more people to help out, and ultimately still get the job done. If we can't get consensus for something along these lines then we've got a problem, but I think it's a good route that could gain consensus without too much difficulty. Regardless, thanks for kicking the BLP can a bit further down the road. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

This is an abuse of your admin tools. You're not making any efforts at sourcing. Cleaning up this backlog is hard work that involves a lot of effort in finding sources and making edits, not just clicking the delete button. This kind of unilateral action is the sort of thing that chases editors away from Misplaced Pages. You are not Judge Dredd. Fences&Windows 11:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Fences, I think you need to take a step back from the wiki bureaucracy for a minute and think about what would really cause people to leave Misplaced Pages: unilateral deletions or libelous information that just lost someone their job. The Misplaced Pages community encompasses a few hundred hard-core people, and really we're the only ones who care about the method of deletion. –Juliancolton |  14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, if we took a stance to support only sourced BLP articles on Misplaced Pages, it might cause readers to start taking us seriously for a change. Our image is in the toilet, and for good reason. JBsupreme (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If more people spent time adding sources instead of just deleting articles, we could start to clear the backlog. How many people participating in these debates have sourced and expanded any of these unsourced BLPs? If we pledged to do one a day, just 100 of us could clear half the backlog in a year. Do we have 100 editors who care enough about preserving information but also about verifiability to do this, or are a handful of admins instead going to act by fiat and alienate editors? What about all the people who contributed the content that is being binned without any attention being paid to whether it can be retained and improved, and all the readers who will never get a voice in these discussions? Misplaced Pages's reputation is in the gutter due to this kind of zealous deletionism. Please stop any out-of-process deletions and instead propose a new speedy deletion criteria if you really feel that prod and AfD aren't enough to deal with problematic articles. What you're doing is the nuclear option: can we discuss other ways of dealing with the problem of unsourced BLPs being created, like semi-protecting them or feeding articles from non-confirmed editors through AFC? An admin going on a rampage like this in any other area would rightly be desysopped faster than you could say 'I deleted the mainpage'. Fences&Windows 18:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Fences on this one. We're discussing several proposals on how to work this out. Your deletions had their intended effect. Continuing them while we're discussing a transparent method of clearing out the backlog is plain disruptive. BLPs are a huge problem on Misplaced Pages, but just because you don't feel like doing a Google search doesn't mean that you may delete easily-sourceable articles at will. Please, cease until one of the more transparent proposals gains consensus. If they've gone for 6 months without being noticed or edited by anybody, a few more days won't hurt. The Wordsmith 18:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a fallacious argument. Even one day more could be the difference between nothing bad and something bad happening. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you patrolling the categories for PROD and/or unreferenced BLPs, or even building a taskforce to fix them. It would probably be more beneficial than the perennial race to be first to A7 tag every bit of vanity at newpages. What Rdm2376 is doing is precisely right: with BLPs we have an unambiguous policy requiring sourcing, reinforced by a special policy particularly requiring sourcing for that kind of article. Yes, people keep on creating unreferenced biographies, and that is a problem. Find them, educate them. Fix the articles. And let the process of housekeeping carry on for the ones that are not compliant with core policy, because if the article creator doesn't care, why should we?. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of stopping. That's what we have been doing, and it achieves nothing. I won;t sit idly by while we let the problem grow even larger. Kevin (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Since you will not respond to polite requests I will block you indefinitely if you do not stop carrying out large scale out of process deletions without first gaining community consensus.©Geni 22:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So you advocate doing nothing? Kevin (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. My BLP Task Force suggestions can be found over on meta for those who care about such things. However I advocate remembering what an admin is. Adminship is granted to perform various janitorial functions within limits set by the community. If you want to change policy you do so in your role as an editor not in your role as an admin.©Geni 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer not to continue with this threat hanging over me, but I am unwilling to continue to sit idly by. As noted above I am being selective so I do not consider that I am blindly mass deleting articles in any case. Of course you are free to take whatever action you see fit. Kevin (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 10 minutes. Please pursue policy changes through more acceptable channels.©Geni 23:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Very petty and very punitive. Congrats on deteriorating the situation even more, Geni. Tarc (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

An acceptable channel would be one that produces a result, and I haven't found one yet. Kevin (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you have continued with your deletions. I have blocked you for 3 hours. There are a number of ongoing debates that appear to have a chance of makeing some changes in this area. When your block expires I urge you to join them but[REDACTED] cannot have admins attempting to introduce policy by fait.©Geni 00:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to join a pointless debate that we have had 10 times before. The community, for want of a better word, is unable to reach consensus on anything important, making more direct action appropriate. I see enough support from well respected editors to continue what I am doing, which is exactly what I will do in 3 hours, unless one of those debates miraculously gets somewhere. If you cannot accept my actions, then I urge you to do something about it. Kevin (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are tilting at windmills here Kevin. There is not consensus for you to continue on this course, and if you persist there will be some admin who blocks you, which would rather short circuit your project. I don't think there are going to be enough admins to take up the gauntlet and delete 50,000+ BLPs, and even if there were they would also end up blocked and this would end up in an unbelievably messy ArbCom case that would put a grinding halt to efforts to deal with unsourced BLPs. Your actions have already served a useful purpose, which is to stir up a major conversation that is indeed different from some of the debates that have happened before, and which still has a good chance of coming up with a solution whereby we begin to steadily work through the unreferenced BLP category in full. I understand and sympathize with your frustration and your motivation, but I think continuing to delete articles would be counterproductive to your end goal. Let the discussion at WT:PROD continue for awhile, and if nothing really comes of that then other possibilities would have to be considered. Turning oneself into a martyr (WP:MARTYR should really be an essay) can be a good thing (and the cause here is certainly just), but strategically I do no think it wise at this time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but I'd rather lose while I'm at least trying to do something. I proposed a similar deletion scheme a few months back, which in common with all the other discussions failed to reach a consensus. If the community at large is unable to deal responsibly with a problem because they cannot form a consensus, then actions such as mine are all that is left. Kevin (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

These deletions are completely within policy. Unsourced material from BLPs may be removed. If the entire BLP is unsourced and unwatched, the entire BLP may be removed, and in fact should be. It is you, Geni, who is acting outside policy. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Geni, your block is outside of policy. Your reblock is even more egregiously so. ++Lar: t/c 00:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Good block. Rd232 00:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully support Geni's block and will reimpose it if there are further deletions after it expires. ] says that Unsourced contentious material from BLPs may be removed. Deletion of non-contentious BLPs for lack of souring is not current policy, and judging by the discussion on WT:CSD deleting them on sight with with no process has a strong consensus against it. That makes such deletions, after warnings, disruption. Some Prod-based process may gain consensus, but even that is far from a SNOW at this point. You have successfully gotten a significant community discussion started, please don't continue with unilateral deletions against consensus. DES 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

After all this time, I see actions as more useful that words. I'm sorry you disagree. Kevin (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DES - the actions created a debate, which may lead to something, but further such actions would at this time be pre-empting that debate. (Which is why blocking was and is warranted.) Rd232 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The block of this fellow contributor was inappropriate and consensus to do so was severely lacking. How sad. JBsupreme (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry I unblocked. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletions within policy? Please. WP:BLP: Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., due to questionable notability or if the subject has requested deletion) then this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard. The deleting administrator should be prepared to explain the action to others (emphasis mine). --Cyclopia 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if "The community, for want of a better word, is unable to reach consensus on anything important", then "making more direct action" is exactly the opposite of "appropriate". Consensus should be fundamental on anything important. If there isn't, the only appropriate course of action is avoiding to push it roguely. --Cyclopia 00:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:JIMBOSAID notwithstanding, I find this relevant:

Source: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html

We need take a firmer stance when it comes to BLP articles. JBsupreme (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that your quote says unless it can be sourced., not unless it is sourced. If something is impossible to source, I agree with removal. If something hasn't simply been sourced, one should look if it's possible to source it. --Cyclopia 00:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between the possibility of something being fixed and somebody actually fixing it. That's what you are missing - anybody could fix this, but nobody ever has. For years. Kevin (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're debating semantics at this point, as the articles which are currently being deleted have not been sourced for over 2+ years. No one is saying these articles cannot be re-written from reliable sources at a later date, but good riddance. JBsupreme (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

JBsupreme, you left out the relevant part of Jimbo's quote "This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.". The quote is being used in WP:BLP to support the removal of unsourced contentious material. WP:BLP does not say that you should remove all unsourced material from BLPs, only the contentious unsourced material (or contentious and poorly sourced).

If Rdm2376 has deleted unsourced BLPs that had uncontentious material then he wasn't following BLP. BLP only empowered him to delete articles that were in its enterity contentious unsourced or poorly sourced material. Otherwise he should have invoked some of the speedy deletion criteria. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason you chose mass deletion rather than mass incubation? Rd232 01:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mostly because there are articles that have been there for months without being fixed, so all it would do is move the problem elsewhere. Kevin (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

hardly. "the problem" is long-term unreferenced BLPs as live articles, accessible by search engines. In the incubator, articles are not in mainspace, and are noindexed. So the move is not a moving of the problem, it's a solution. Rd232 01:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I might agree if there were some time limit, but not a a place to dump the problem forever. Kevin (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please restore these articles

I looked through your recent mass deletions, and I found quite a few that are very easily sourceable:

• Stephen Langdon - former Canadian Member of Parliament
• Kersten Alm - Cabinet of the Åland Islands
• Pedro Lastra - Chilean poet
• Martyn Jacques - musician
• Donald Cole (anthropologist) - academic
• Naseer al-Chaderchi - notable Iraqi politician
• Fillie Lyckow - Swedish actress
• Robert C. Kolodny - sexologist
• Cecilia Torudd - Swedish cartoonist
• Bounleut Saycocie
• John Manley (archaeologist)

As you can see, nearly all of the articles you mass deleted were easily sourceable. The above took me 20 minutes to search in total, which is roughly the same amount of time it took you to delete them. See how deleting articles like these without even the most cursory checks for sources can harm the encyclopedia? Looking in Google's cache, none of these articles contained contentious material. I request that all of these be restored. The Wordsmith 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to userify any of these for you, and you can source them and move them back. Any that aren't sourced 12 hours after you get them, I'll delete again. Let me know if that's of interest. (and don't ask for more at once than you can handle easily...) ++Lar: t/c 21:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please restore Talk:Tolu Ajayi as the article is coming along nicely now. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Harriet Lindeman, Minister in the government of Åland.
• Runar Karlsson, also minister.

--Apoc2400 (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 12 hours for continuing to delete non-contentious biography articles out-of-process, and without any supporting consensus. You have been asked by several respected editors to stop these non-policy supported deletions. WP:BLP specifically refers to deleting unsourced or poorly sourced contentious articles as a last resort. So far as I can tell you are making no attempt to source these, so it is your first resort. You are deleting articles that have no faintly contentious content, so you are again not supported by the bLP policy. And the discussion at WT:CSD#Add new criteria to CSD has roundly rejected the idea of speedy deletions for such articles (7 to 20 at present). Your attention has previously been drawn to this discussion as evidence of the lack of any consensus -- indeed a consensus against -- your current actions, which amount to speedy deletion without the formality of passing as CSD first. DES 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BLP_deletions. Thank you. –Juliancolton |  02:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)