Clearly notable folks have articles that stay despite the obvious risk of
tendentious editing. Giovanni di Stefano is one of those. I have no problem
monitoring this article for uncited and controversial additions, and
apparently neither do you and a number of other people. The issue of
deleting BLPs on people of marginal notability is separate - clearly the
proposal as written (and intended) wouldn't apply to di Stefano at this
point. There is no way the AfD can be interpreted as "no consensus." At
least its more or less out of the way - there can be no question in the
future that this article ought to remain, despite the risks outlined in
Doc's essay. Bonus for the project is that the GdS issue provided the
impetus to change policy so that many other marginal notability BLPs can be
deleted, so no one has to watch them forever.
Nathan
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
It gets better
- there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal
operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its
backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will
be
this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no
consensus
for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I
personally can't see how
that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can. Maybe
we
need a new process - Articles for Keep, where all nominated articles are
deleted unless enough people come by to make argue for keeping them.
Nathan
I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep
Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I
wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years
monitoring it.
Fred
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l