However, it seems the discontents with their unending and unfollowable debates have watered it down to the point of uselessness, as the onus is back on the prodder - and only the unverifiable stuff gets deleted (status-quo in effect).
See my response.
QUOTE
I take my eyes off this for a few days, because it is being talked to death and I find the whole thing has been hijacked.
The supposed consensus closing states:
That defeats the entire purpose.
Currently, if I find an unsourced article and decide to look for sources and can find none, I can prod or afd the article as being "unverifiable" (not unverified but actually not capable of verification. If no one can verify it in the timeframe of seven days, AfD will then delete it. That's the current system.
The problem with that is that too often no one was prepared to do the source checking, hence the backlog, hence the problem, hence the speedy deletions.
The idea of a stickyprod was that (for new articles) we were going to say (as nicely as we could) "source this, or it dies". If people want a BLP article to stay on wikipedia, they must source it, or someone must, within a seven day period.
The problem with requiring the prodder to look for sources is that it puts us back to square one. That is, if no-one is willing to check for sources, the article ends up staying. We only delete those articles shown to be unverifiable, whilst the unsourced languish until someone sources them, or tries to and fails.
A sticky prod with this caveat is pointless. We've got mechanisms already to remove material that someone believes to be unverifiable. What we were about was shifting the burden for new BLPs onto those wishing to retain.
I'm also left asking. What if someone like me simply prods new unreferenced BLPs and doesn't volunteer to check for sourcing? If someone sources them, certainly they can deprod. But what happens otherwise? Do the articles get kept because the prodder "didn't the work required?"
Sticking prod with an onus on the prodder is a waste of time, and not in line with the consensus that was clear. Seems to me that a we had a consensus, and so some of us moved on, while others, who didn't like that, kept talking till they talked it into something completely different.
The consensus we had would certainly have satisfied me that speedy deletion should not be used. However, this pointless exercise takes us back to square one. Not good at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The supposed consensus closing states:
QUOTE
A new PROD-like process should be designed to handle new unsourced BLPs (those written after the final approval of the process). Modifying the current PROD for this purpose has been soundly rejected. The BLP PROD should, in general, not be removable without sufficient addition of sources. What "sufficient" constitutes must be determined by the community. In addition, there appears to be a consensus that the nominator should make a good faith effort to look for sources before nominating. (emphasis added)
That defeats the entire purpose.
Currently, if I find an unsourced article and decide to look for sources and can find none, I can prod or afd the article as being "unverifiable" (not unverified but actually not capable of verification. If no one can verify it in the timeframe of seven days, AfD will then delete it. That's the current system.
The problem with that is that too often no one was prepared to do the source checking, hence the backlog, hence the problem, hence the speedy deletions.
The idea of a stickyprod was that (for new articles) we were going to say (as nicely as we could) "source this, or it dies". If people want a BLP article to stay on wikipedia, they must source it, or someone must, within a seven day period.
The problem with requiring the prodder to look for sources is that it puts us back to square one. That is, if no-one is willing to check for sources, the article ends up staying. We only delete those articles shown to be unverifiable, whilst the unsourced languish until someone sources them, or tries to and fails.
A sticky prod with this caveat is pointless. We've got mechanisms already to remove material that someone believes to be unverifiable. What we were about was shifting the burden for new BLPs onto those wishing to retain.
I'm also left asking. What if someone like me simply prods new unreferenced BLPs and doesn't volunteer to check for sourcing? If someone sources them, certainly they can deprod. But what happens otherwise? Do the articles get kept because the prodder "didn't the work required?"
Sticking prod with an onus on the prodder is a waste of time, and not in line with the consensus that was clear. Seems to me that a we had a consensus, and so some of us moved on, while others, who didn't like that, kept talking till they talked it into something completely different.
The consensus we had would certainly have satisfied me that speedy deletion should not be used. However, this pointless exercise takes us back to square one. Not good at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)