[WikiEN-l] Analysis of BLP issues (Jimmy Wales should reconsider)

[Angus McLellan]

> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Analysis of BLP issues (Jimmy Wales should
>         reconsider)
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <fbad4e140704220745i1efef31n167795dc6cc18f6 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> OK. What seems a practical first move?
>
> Deleting all living bios is not going to fly. It just won't be accepted.
>
> The layer of barely-notable bios could be vanquished with little
> trouble. The tricky part is "what is notable?" It's not going to be
> possible to come up with a hardline definition that doesn't result in
> gross systemic bias, editors deleting like deranged robots or both.
>
> Is a new deletion rule on living bios worth trying? It's the most
> politically viable idea I've heard so far.

No Original Research is Your Friend.

Articles fabricated from 100% guaranteed primary source material like
blogs, websites, court reports, police records, and trivial human
interest reporting usually walk, talk, and quack just like original
research. But take them to AFD and the reaction will usually be "It
has references. It can't be original research." How can you do
original research without references?

We don't need to have biographies on people for whom no
biographical-quality sources exist at present. We can wait for
suitable sources to be created. There's no deadline, so I heard. When
we write about dead people, we  nearly always plunder books,
biographies, encyclopedias, and the like. We don't look up the 19 July
1851 New York Sun. No reason to do any different for people who are
still breathing.

Angus McLellan