2009/3/3 Michael Snow <[email protected]> > 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. > > I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep" would be a change from current state, right?
I ask because I got a call the other day from someone asking to have the BLP about her deleted. The article centred around a single incident in her life. I handed it off to a longtime English Wikipedian (doesn't matter who), who told me the subject was notable and therefore the article would be kept. That experience was consistent with my general understanding - that it has been extremely difficult for even marginally notable people to get the BLP about them deleted. So -again, just to clarify- if Wikipedia adopted a practice of defaulting to delete unless there's consensus to keep, that would be change from how BLPs are handled today - yes? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
