On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia(a)zog.org> wrote:
2010/1/21 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Does anyone have a summary of the articles
deleted in the present
blood-crazed axe frenzy? Is there a list up? And/or a description of
the general type of BLP deleted?
I understand many were hardly-viewed articles with no edits in the
last six months. Which sounds innocuous enough, but remember that
[[John Seigenthaler]] was one of those until the subject noticed.
I don't get the entire controversy: is it not the case that only
*statements* can be sourced, and not entire articles?
Does that not mean that if [[John Seigenthaler]] contained at least one
<ref> at the time, it wouldn't have been affected by this?
So why not go the whole hog and delete all BLPs where not every statement is
sourced?
Michel
I'm not going to speak for others here, but after a quick gloss of
this, it seems that the admins in question are deleting BLPs where
*nothing* is sourced. Which, leaving "out of process deletion" issues
aside (ugh), is a view that at least has some inherent plausibility,
and is nothing at all like what you are describing.
- causa sui