Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamais Cascio: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 48:
:::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)
::::None of this material was "contentious"; you just didn't like it. I continue to think that gutting an article while it is is at AfD is inappropriate. It weakens and distorts the AfD discussion, by depriving the discussants of material that they should have been allowed to evaluate for themselves. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 22:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
::::I was initially hesitant to make changes for this very reason. However, I accept that David is acting in accordance with BLP policies. With their emphasis on immediate removal of contentious material (even from the 'Talk' section), the BLP policies do not encourage balanced discussion. However, they are what they are, and this isn't the place to grumble about their failings. With the benefit of hindsight, I should have reinstated the Article via AfC. Still, this is where we are, and we may as well let the process run to its conclusion.[[User:Arfisk|Arfisk]] ([[User talk:Arfisk|talk]]) 00:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
| |||