On 3/26/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>Also, I have a hard time imagining a situation
where it is absolutely
>impossible to purge POV from the bio of an otherwise notable person
>without nuking the article.
The "offending" information remains in the
history without extensive oversighting which > would be grossly inappropriate in
this case as the article history is the subject of a legal > action.
Using this logic, every bio with potentially inflammatory information
would have to be deleted and written from scratch instead of just
removing the bad info. If absolutely necessary, problem content can be
removed from an article's history as is sometimes done with copyvios.
In any case Bauer deletion did not end up causing a wheel war as the
Brandt deletion had done which is good.
In the case of [[Danial Brandt]], one admin deleted it out of process
under his own interpretation of IAR. He thought that by doing so he
would make WP a better encyclopedia by getting rid of a thorn in its
side. A lot of others agreed with him judging by all the barnstars and
pictures of big brass balls on his talk page. However, others didn't
and another admin restored the article. That should have been the end
of the story as far as speedy deletes were concerned but instead it
was deleted/restored/deleted/restored "lather rinse repeat". In the
end, the article remained and Jimbo ended up whacking everybody
involved, nothing was accomplished. It would have been better if it
were "one delete", "one restore", "we talk about it on AFD".
The
result would have probably been the same but without the wheel war and
without anybody being desysoped.
That's all I'm suggesting. Super speedy delete the article, bio or
otherwise, if you feel you have a good reason but if another admin
disagrees, then it should stay and go to AFD. If a non admin
disagrees, then there's deletion review.