Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamais Cascio: Difference between revisions

::The sources I cited as being the basis for fulfilling GNG are actually still there in the article; they were just moved from the lead to the "career" section. However, I agree with your general feeling that it is inappropriate to remove sources during the middle of an AfD discussion. The whole point of an AfD discussion is to evaluate the article and particularly its sourcing. To gut the article like this ([[User:David Gerard]] literally removed half the article) is unfair to the discussants, by removing information they might consider relevant. In effect, this kind of thing is an attempt to impose one person's opinion of the sources on everybody else. I am glad to see that some of the deleted material was restored. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 20:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

:::Deleting a fog of bad sources is always appropriate, ''particularly in a [[WP:BLP|BLP]]'' - this isn't just any article. As BLP expressly notes, "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Note also, from the policy: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – '''should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.'''" (Bolding in original.) As it is, the restored material actually has proper sourcing now - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 21:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)