![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Alex |
![]()
Post
#21
|
Back from the dead ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,017 Joined: Member No.: 867 ![]() |
So it's gone now. Deleted by Yanksox, speedily endorsed by our friend Gaillimh. Three cheers all round? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)
|
![]() ![]() |
Alkivar |
![]()
Post
#22
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 121 Joined: Member No.: 211 ![]() |
Look Jimbo wading in is probably a bad idea... we all know a fiat declaration will not be a popular thing.
The best thing that could happen is a public discourse at DRV (and not AFD) concludes with a keep deleted. the community at large (and quite a few of the admins) dont think the article is worth it. Some likely voted delete/keep deleted in hopes they'd get off the hivemind, others because they feel brandt is non notable. Me its because i'm sick of seeing common sense fail to overcome the wiki-lawyering process. So best of luck to you DB... hopefully the status quo of delete... remains the status quo. |
anon1234 |
![]()
Post
#23
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Inactive Posts: 401 Joined: Member No.: 111 ![]() |
The best thing that could happen is a public discourse at DRV (and not AFD) concludes with a keep deleted. the community at large (and quite a few of the admins) dont think the article is worth it. While this is a solution to this article, it isn't a globally optimal solution. What this is, is an instance where sustained retaliation and pressure resulted in an article being removed. Most individuals who end up in Brandt's situation do not have the time or research ability to do this. A consistent policy that allows for intermediately notable people to opt-out of Wikipedia would be a fairer solution. While it would be difficult to craft, it would allow for more consistency in this current grey area. Wales shouldn't have to intervene every time in such situations nor should admins have to take on the risk of being very WP:BOLD as Yanksox did.Some likely voted delete/keep deleted in hopes they'd get off the hivemind, others because they feel brandt is non notable. Me its because i'm sick of seeing common sense fail to overcome the wiki-lawyering process. There should be a request for opt-out means which results in a way to confirm the request is authentic and then triggers an AfD. In that AfD people then argue whether or not the individual meets the higher degree of notability required in order to keep the article against the wishes of the article's subject. If a non-notable individual then becomes more public one can initiate another discussion of whether the individual is deserving of a Wikipedia bio. Thus integrating into the standard AfD policy framework a means of opting-out. This post has been edited by anon1234: |
a view from the hive |
![]()
Post
#24
|
Junior Member ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 90 Joined: From: Milky Way Galaxy Member No.: 768 ![]() |
The best thing that could happen is a public discourse at DRV (and not AFD) concludes with a keep deleted. the community at large (and quite a few of the admins) dont think the article is worth it. While this is a solution to this article, it isn't a globally optimal solution. What this is, is an instance where sustained retaliation and pressure resulted in an article being removed. Most individuals who end up in Brandt's situation do not have the time or research ability to do this. A consistent policy that allows for intermediately notable people to opt-out of Wikipedia would be a fairer solution. While it would be difficult to craft, it would allow for more consistency in this current grey area. Wales shouldn't have to intervene every time in such situations nor should admins have to take on the risk of being very WP:BOLD as Yanksox did.Some likely voted delete/keep deleted in hopes they'd get off the hivemind, others because they feel brandt is non notable. Me its because i'm sick of seeing common sense fail to overcome the wiki-lawyering process. There should be a request for opt-out means which results in a way to confirm the request is authentic and then triggers an AfD. In that AfD people then argue whether or not the individual meets the higher degree of notability required in order to keep the article against the wishes of the article's subject. If a non-notable individual then becomes more public one can initiate another discussion of whether the individual is deserving of a Wikipedia bio. Thus integrating into the standard AfD policy framework a means of opting-out. Well, it comes down to who actually would want to lookup info about Daniel. No offense, but I highly highly doubt Daniel's going to make Time or Fortune or any sort of public figure list anytime soon. The article was mostly kept because some people were strongly opposed to the tatics Daniel had used, and they wanted "revenge." On the bright side, I think give it a couple more days and with the way it's going I can close the DRV as endorsed (it'd be too big of an uproar if I did it now and someone would likely wheel war over it...) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |