2010/1/21 The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com>: > Just restored a former prime minister.
I am carefully staying out of this on all sides (hey, I've got a weekend off, I'm looking forward to some peace), but this flags up one issue I'd really like to see brought up in these discussions: * an emphasis that these are "procedural" deletions, and not in any way reflective of the merits of the topic of the article. A high proportion of these unsourced-BLPs are going to be on the sorts of topics that no-one will particularly cry to see deleted; drive-by puff pieces and contentless stubs. However, a lot more will simply be "bad articles on good topics"; significant figures, whose notability even the most exclusionist would agree on, but who we have not yet managed to write a halfway decent article on. (I could name a few, easily!) We're historically prone to having people (especially at CSD) assume that an earlier deletion is itself a strong black mark - if an article was deleted earlier, there must have been a good reason for it, they figure. Whatever comes out of this, it would be good to see something firmly stating that these articles were deleted because they were textually bad, not conceptually bad, and people are encouraged to recreate them as better versions. (and now, back to planning my trip) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l