On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
(4) How many requests do we actually get from article subjects to delete the
article about them? I would think most would be happier with an article that
speaks well of them and/or is simply factually correct. If we were to adopt
this particular approach (and if it were not redundant, perhaps because the
existing approach failed to take root permanently) would it have much
practical impact?
As a former OTRS person, I can say that this number is surprisingly high.
I handled a *number* of cases in which people wanted their articles deleted.
Some were completely non-notable, some were marginally notable, and some
still are completely notable (but they'd still rather be gone, once
we've explained
that we can't white-wash for them).
[snip]
Maybe by giving subjects a more obvious and easy way to complain we can get
past this hurdle, making OTRS respondents responsible for starting AfDs. But
we still have a whole constantly expanding host of articles and potential
articles on living people who are too notable to delete; a deletion default
doesn't help with those.
Nathan
While working with OTRS, I actually sent several articles through AfD. And I
typically didn't announce that it was an OTRS thing, so as to let the community
judge the article on its own merits. This would actually be a decent policy to
follow: encourage OTRS respondents to send the marginally notable through
the normal AfD process (like any other) and allow those in the community
more equipped to deal with deletion/BLP issues handle it.
-Chad