On 5/2/07, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Likely a lot longer than "a few weeks", if
the "delete any recreation of
an article
which has already been properly processed and therefore declared 'article
non
grata' in perpetuity" crew get their teeth into them.
Then try Deletion Review for fun, see how you like it.
--
Phil
I would not consider this to be proper processing, but for our lovely "*Some
ad hoc process was followed (but a process nonetheless!), plus the subject
has never been on the cover of multiple english-language magazines, keep
deleted. ~~~~" trolls of DRV, just about anything is good enough.
To keep the collateral damage at a minimum, we should at least specify that
such an article can be restored by anyone who has made a good faith effort
to improve it, or recreated from scratch if the former revisions contained
libelous statements (might happen 1 in 500) or copyright-infringing content
(probably a lot more common, considering the millions of books that will
never be published online for comparison).
Charlotte
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Unsourced-biographies-tf3649903.html#a10297162
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.