Andrew Gray wrote: > 2009/3/3 David Gerard <[email protected]>: > >> 2009/3/3 Sue Gardner <[email protected]>: >> >>> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability >>> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a >>> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift >>> closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and >>> practices, particularly WRT BLPs? >>> >> Deletion upon request is a terrible idea. It will lead to only >> hagiographies - violations of NPOV - being kept. (This has been >> discussed at length on wikien-l, fwiw.) >> > That said, reacting the other way and *prohibiting* deletion on > request is also counterproductive - we've skirted close to this on > enwp in the past, where people have interpreted "subject has asked us > to delete it" as being an automatic cast-iron reason to keep it in > place. I mean, I've seen cases where someone's stood up and said "this > article is atrocious, subject wants it deleted" and it's been kept > (with a variety of snide comments), whereas had they just said "this > article is atrocious", it'd have been killed with no objections. > I agree with all of this. Fundamentally, our work as a community is to exercise editorial judgment, and we have a responsibility not to abdicate it. That gives me a dislike of default deletion upon request. But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our standards. So the reversed presumption of "default to delete, unless consensus to keep" is a good idea for living subjects. I would add that when this is in question, arguments that make excuses for the current state of the article are not valid reasons to keep it.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
