2010/1/21 David Gerard <dgerard at 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.
Here you go, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_wub/Lazarus
It only includes deletions by one admin so far, but I plan to add more tomorrow. Also useful things like google cached versions for non-admins.
I also have a list at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apoc2400/Deletion_list Deletions by five admins, not containing PROD nominations. My impression is that the notability varies from borderline to medium to quite high, with most in the middle. Completely non-notable people just don't stay for years. I have been able to find sources for 90% of the deleted articles I have tried to restore, and perhaps 80% would pass an ordinary AfD. Among them are former prime ministers, many former cabinet of smaller countries, national legislature members and of course a lot of athletes and artists from non-English countries of varying notability.
The meme that unsourced articles are pure crap is just wrong. Some are quite well written, but by someone who didn't know (or care?) about our sourcing requirements.
2010/1/25 Apoc 2400 apoc2400@gmail.com:
The meme that unsourced articles are pure crap is just wrong. Some are quite well written, but by someone who didn't know (or care?) about our sourcing requirements.
Well, yes. The problem with unsourced BLPs is that they're dangerous in ways that unsourced other articles aren't.
Thank you VERY MUCH for your hard work on this.
- d.
2010/1/25 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2010/1/25 Apoc 2400 apoc2400@gmail.com:
The meme that unsourced articles are pure crap is just wrong. Some are quite well written, but by someone who didn't know (or care?) about our sourcing requirements.
Well, yes. The problem with unsourced BLPs is that they're dangerous in ways that unsourced other articles aren't.
Thank you VERY MUCH for your hard work on this.
- d.
unsourced BLPs are not however dangerous in a way that sourced BLPs are not.
geni wrote:
unsourced BLPs are not however dangerous in a way that sourced BLPs are not.
Face it, slogans haven't got us very far in this discussion. A "BLP that no one responsible has looked at" is certainly dangerous in a way that a "BLP that some one responsible has looked at" may not be. Your slogan would be less convincing in a situation where anyone responsible looking at an unsourced BLP took some action that included making it not totally unsourced. This is just a version of "many eyeballs". In the form "unsourced BLPs include some of the worst articles on the site" it is hardly even controversial.
Charles