Jake Wartenburg, rightly in my view, made this edit to codify what is becoming accepted practice... that a BLP that has no consensus defaults to delete, or at least that the admin has the option of so closing it. Chillum reverted it here. I've put it back, and am now here on the talk to discuss it. Policy is descriptive, for the most part, it describes what we do, and it sometimes lags practice. This is one of those cases. Also, please be informed by this edit of Jimbo Wales in which he is pretty strongly saying that marginals should go. Being kind is more important than having every marginal BLP that no dead tree encyclopedia would have. I invite support for this view. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• This definitely has my strong support and, IMO, is way overdue. I strongly suspect Jimbo would concur - Alison ^❤ 02:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think this is a sensible change. It doesn't force any change on the community, rather it allows admins to use their discretion to a greater degree at the marginal edges of notability, where such discretion is most needed. Kevin (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Kevin puts this quite well. This change is overdue in my opinion. Interestingly Cary Bass's BLP Task Force imagined an even greater scope of no consensus defaulting to delete at AfD, which is certainly something to think about. Perhaps this is how bad things have gotten for OTRS. NW (Talk) 02:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's set to be rewritten to be BLP-specific. Lara 05:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable to codify this practice. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The subtle wording change is a significant one and it has not been demonstrated that it was a descriptive one, as shown by the responses to the first deletion rationale relying on this policy revision. If an arguably notable individual requests deletion of their biography, I agree that we should strongly consider complying with their wishes. Otherwise, closing administrators should rely on consensus, with our standard of "no consensus" defaulting to retention. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose [edit confict] #1 this isn't actually a common practice that I know of. #2 There is a discussion (above) that addressed this before. #3 If you are going to try to make such a change, a wider discussion is in order (RfC). I'll certainly be including a proposal to remove the current (narrow) option to delete with no consensus in any such discussion. In any case, we should be defaulting to keep on all article IMO. We should only remove those things we find consensus to remove. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Last discussion is at [2] Hobit (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Let's not forget that consensus can change - Alison ^❤ 03:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Certainly it can. But I've seen no evidence other than one highly debatable AfD result that says it has. So far we've seen the same folks who seem to be pushing this BLP change everywhere else in the last week or so pushing it here. Serious question: are you all discussing these AfDs, DrVs and/or this policy change somewhere (on or off Wikipedia?). It feels very orchestrated. S Marshall asked the same question a while back in a DrV and got no response. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, I've only just come out of retirement a few weeks back so am playing catch-up here. My past work as an oversighter has contributed to my belief that WP has a serious BLP issue, the question of marginal ones being only part of the problem. The simple fact is there just aren't enough eyes to ensure adequate policiing of alll BLPs and the fabled 'flagged revisions' has been dragging on for years, though it's enabled on other wikis. I'll believe it when I see it - Alison ^❤ 04:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Part of it probably has a lot to do with User:Jennavecia/AFDBIO which I spammed to the talk page of WikiProject Living people and to several BLP editors and admins. It lists all biographical AFDs, so allows for easier focus for those who work in BLP. As far as the "default to delete", that's been pushed for quite a few months now, but really gained traction a few weeks ago. It's not that knew, it's just been mentioned more in the past week or so, mostly by Lar and myself, I think, and probably several members of the BLP project. It's also discussed on WR quite a bit, along with some AFDs and DRVs. Lara 05:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
            • • Let me ask again. Is there any discussion on-going, on or off wikipedia, on the topic of BLPs, by any of you that are !voting to support this proposal? If so, could you please provide a link to those disussions (on WR or elsewhere)? That a group of people, all !voting the same way, to a DrV, a WP:DEL discussion, as well as a number of AfDs (the AFDBIO page would explain the AfDs, though I'm not sure how people found it) makes me wonder what prompted them to all appear at the same time. Hobit (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
                • here and here are the ones I've noticed. So that there is no misunderstanding: I do not participate (post) on WR, ever. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• A very reasonable and current description of what we do. I support. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless there is a current(ie not potential) BLP issue that cannot be remedied through regular editing, or the subject of the article is objecting then there is no BLP reason to default to delete. If there are real issues sure, but BLP should not be used to delete when BLP is not at issue. This distinction needs to be clear. All too often the BLP exceptions are used when BLP is not the motive. Chillum 03:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose You've got to be kidding me. The closing admin for the David Shankbone AfD comes over here and makes this change, then becomes the closing admin at that AfD and uses it to close (even though the poor closing statement simply calls that AfD a "delete", ignoring the fact that more raw votes were for "Keep"). This just reeks of misuse of the ability to edit the encyclopedia. Even if the change were a good idea, initiating the change by this particular editor at this particular time basically looks like twisting the entire encyclopedia to get one outcome in one case, regardless of what dozens of editors made the effort to try to decide in a good, civil discussion. Don't we need to show respect for these editors? Perhaps the change should be made later, but not now. Wikipedia should try to avoid becoming a farce. And this kind of effort at policy change at this time makes it very hard to assume good faith on the part of the proponents. Don't you see what you look like? JohnWBarber (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, when did "default to delete" in any situation gain consensus? The last discussion I remember on the subject in May it was shot down. Did I miss a changing of consensus, or was it just inserted one day? Chillum 03:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good question. It didn't. But the change was made on the page for this policy anyway before it was edited back out, which is why we're discussing it now. If there's some kind of typical practice of defaulting to delete in AfDs for marginal BLPs, then let's have the diffs and let's watch that position gain consensus here. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support I think Wikipedia has too many marginally notable BLP articles, and any way to reduce them is beneficial. Unless there is a clear consensus to keep, these marginal articles should go. Otherwise, we reduce the overall quality of the Encyclopedia by becoming a phone book or a vanity site. Also, BLPs are extremely hard to guard against vandalism and malicious edits, and articles about marginally notable individuals strain our ability to keep junk and potential libel out. Crum375 (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I strongly agree with Lar's suggestion, so long as it says that "no consensus" closes of BLP AfDs may default to delete, rather than requiring that this be so. That is, when an admin closes a BLP AfD as no consensus, they have the option to either "default to keep" or "default to delete." Making it purely the latter (or the former, as has been the case in the past) is too much of a straight jacket, and I think what's needed here is more admin discretion when it comes to marginally notable BLPs that likely could be (or already have been) highly problematic. At the least I'd like to try this for awhile and see if it works/helps, and if it creates huge problems (which is possible, though I won't spill the beans and say how) we can change the practice again. Just in terms of how to run this discussion, I would suggest that it be listed at the centralized discussions page or wherever else necessary to get broad community feedback, and I would also suggest that folks try to think about this in general terms and without respect to the recent David Shankbone AfD. This discussion stems from that, but is by no means intrinsically tied to it, and we should try to think about this proposal in terms of the broader BLP problem of which we are all aware (and about which we have done next to nothing) rather than in the context of a recent (and heated) community debate about a specific article. The discussion here is vastly more important than the discussion there was, and one could have wanted to keep the Shankbone article (and hate the way the AfD was closed...the second time!) and still support this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I was going to oppose per Chillum, but given that BLP is essentially a beefed-up version of every other important content policy, I can't really think of any situations where deletion would be considered, but BLP would not in any way be an issue. Mr.Z-man 04:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose There are already plenty (too many?) tools to deal with BLPs. The problem isn't with BLPs that are nominated for deletion, it is with BLPs that go unchecked and unwatched. Any editor has the mandate to ignore 3RR to remove BLP violations, and admins have virutally limitless permission to "shoot first, ask questions later" in any BLP dispute. Flipping the consensus to "default to delete" allows too much suppression of political dissent. I question whether Orly Taitz's or even Murder of Robert Eric Wone would have survived an AfD had such been the default deletion outcome. Fact is, BLP is used in a partisan manner. This proposal would embolden such partisan use, without any corresponding reduction of risk. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The partisan use of BLP is precisely my concern. Chillum 05:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that is very much a concern, and I think part of how you deal with that is by not making delete the automatic default for no consensus BLPs but rather an option the closing admin can take, thus admins would not be forced to delete in crazy-partisan AfDs that happened to end no consensus. Still, problems could remain, even among admins themselves who could close no consensus AfDs too aggressively as delete defaults because they have an agenda to rid the 'pedia of as many BLPs as possible (not commenting on that view one way or another, just saying it's obviously out there and pursuing it would be an abuse of deletion policy). For both Chillum and Jclemens or anyone thinking along your lines I have a question: would you be more likely to support this if we made this a "trial change", e.g. change the policy for a couple of months, keep a close eye on what happens, and then re-evaluate at the end and determine whether we really have consensus for it or not? I wonder if that isn't a more workable compromise, also being in the spirit of the flagged revisions proposal that eventually won consensus as a "trial". --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather, if it's to be a trial, that it be a set of administrators 1) deleting no-consensus BLPs under IAR, 2) Logging them centrally for tracking and discussion, and 3) Logging any resultant DRVs from such IAR closes. I'd favor that sort of a trial period as a way to see if consensus has indeed changed, and if abuses have been absent. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This isn't a new thing. I'll diff some of the AFDs in the next day or so. It's a bit late now, but this has been a change in tradition effective for some time now. There are a few commonsense things that would serve to significantly improve the BLP problem. This is one of them. To say "there are already plenty (too many?) tools to deal with BLPs" is beyond ridiculous. I don't even have a further reply to that. Lara 05:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This policy change will cause many headaches in the future if it is adopted. Anything that can be borderline considered borderline, after a hard fought discussion will simply go to delete because the closing administrator will, on his/her whim, decide so. There are too many problems with allowing this clause/loophole. We should come to a consensus that you can absolutely NOT default to delete on a no consensus of a borderline notable subject (who decides notability anyways? the community cannot have decided on this if a no consensus is the result, so therefore you cannot determine from a no consensus vote that there was consensus that he is marginally notable). You see how FUBARed this is? A lengthy discussion on whether or not a subject is notable, and the outcome of that can be reduced to whether or not the closing administrator thinks the subject is notable. How does that work? I'm also concerned that this discussion is only reaching the most ardent voters at the last AFD and may not be a proper, impartial consideration of this issue. Varks Spira (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If the community at an AfD debate cannot decide if a subject is notable or not, i.e. "no consensus", then defaulting to keep is just as arbitrary a solution as defaulting to delete. As biographies of the living need to have particular care to be neutral, accurate, well sourced etc. this gives us a good reason to make this arbitrary decision on the side of deletion. Now this proposal is not saying that we must delete no consensus BLPs, even if many of us feel that should be the case, just that the closer will be allowed an extra degree of discretion. Kevin (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've no significant objection to tightening up our inclusion guidelines for BLPs. I do object to defaulting to deletion for NC discussions. If the goal is to have fewer BLPs of "debatable" notability, we should change WP:N, not WP:DEL. This change will result in three problems: #1 it will be easier for partisons to delete articles on people they don't like. #2 It will greatly increase the "random by admin" issues at AfD. #3 It solves no real problem: there will be fewer BLPs, but we'll get to the point that people just renom until they get a closer that deletes. Then it gets recreated and gets renomed until kept. Just too much room for the admin to enforce their own opinion. Hobit (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, you clearly do not understand the concept of "No Consensus". That means, do nothing. It doesn't mean delete the article. It means there is no need to go in a new direction and the article remains in place. Varks Spira (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Choosing to keep is just as much an action as choosing to delete. The actions we choose to take after a debate are not part of the process that builds consensus, or fails to do so. Kevin (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

((ec))Actually, that's not quite correct. The concept of no consensus means that it is not clear one way or another what the will of the community is i.e. there is not a consensus to keep or delete. It does not mean that nothing should be done, as a state of consensus or lack thereof can only lead to an action through a governing process that pairs said state with the resulting outcome. In the example where three possible states (keep, delete, unknown/unclear) can be the outcome of a given request for consensus, it is important to have agreement on how all three states are handled. The "do nothing" approach is a result of the "default to keep" rule, not that no consensus has been reached in the first place. From a purely logical point of view, the opposite outcome is just as valid. Many thanks, Gazimoff 00:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Way too early to discuss – let's wait until everyone cools down so we can discuss this whole thing civilly and rationally as opposed to arguing emotively. I'd recommend 1 month at the least. MuZemike 06:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • what if in a month there's some other controversial AfD? How long do we wait? Also, see here where SlimVirgin eloquently argued for this very change. She was right then and it's been how long since then? How much more harm is going to be done while we wait for "the right time"? No time like the present. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • What I mean is, the timing behind such a proposal is horribly bad, especially in the wake of one of our more contentious AFDs we've had in a while. Looking at the below commentary (as well as above, which sparked my recommendation), users here are overreacting as a result of the recent AFD; this has turned into a wiki-flamewar with all users involved here ready to tear each others' heads off in a virtual fashion (of course, I think some people here would rather do that). There's going to be an imminent review of the AFD in question, so we shouldn't be pushing this right now. Wait a while so that everyone has a chance to cool down, collect their thoughts, and are able to discuss this rationally and civilly. MuZemike 19:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • way too early? This debate and discussion has being going on for years. I can understand the desire to have cool rational discussion, but how long until the next BLP tempest? Perhaps that is indicative that something needs done (badly overdue, in my opinion) Achromatic (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I meant too early with regards to the recent developments in the Shankbone case, which has everyone worked up as a result. MuZemike 21:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I understand the rationale and I understand the scope of the BLP problem, but like automatically deleting unreferenced BLPs, this is another strongarm solution which doesn't even begin to focus on the crux of the matter. I'm not generally opposed to the notion of shifting our stance on 'consensus' in AfDs like this but I don't feel that a flick of a switch in the deletion policy is likely to do it. I can haz extremism? Protonk (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Hard cases make bad law. Policy changes should not be made to contrive a result in a particular controversial case in which many of the participants seem to have a conflict of interest. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose in the strongest possible terms, the BLP I signed up for is to prevent unsourced or poorly sourced information about living people from being introduced here, not to prevent well sourced information from being introduced. I never even conceived that this type of misuse would be tolerated. That monster is well out of control already, and clearly caused a horribly mistaken decision in the Shankbone case. Let's rein it in here before it goes any further. We should delete when there is strong consensus to do so (either explicitly through an XfD discussion showing clear consensus or implicitly through standing policies such as CSD). We should not delete at any other time or for any other reason. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose -- there are sufficient methods for dealing with problems in BLPs and this is serious overkill. And: when this proposal fails, it would be appropriate for people to stop claiming, falsely, that it is already policy. Since it has already failed once this year (here), persisting in making this false claim strikes me as disruptive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason to treat BLPs any differently from any other article, except that we recognize that they are more likely than other articles to generate defamation/privacy breaches, and we should therefore take steps to prevent such (semi-protection being the obvious answer) without otherwise harming the encyclopedia.--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Hands too much power and responsibility to administrators, and is an attempt to change practice, rather than describe it. Illustrated in the Shankbone case, where a snowball no consensus was closed as a keep and then a delete. The usual and sensible thing is to make major changes by consensus, unless there are pressing and unusual reasons otherwise. In that case, there very clearly were not.John Z (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support despite the fact that Jimbo long ago lost the moral credibility to give any kind of lead to the community I agree that this is way overdue. This is a correct description of what has been happening in deletion discussions recently and is only a small extension to the existing rule that marginally notable blps may be deleted at admin discretion when closing an AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support wording per Jimbo, Lar, Alison, etc. AfDs on marginally notable BLPs should default to delete unless there is clear consensus to keep. Cla68 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Subject requests deletion of questionably notable bio = speedy. Wikipedian mmorpg-max-leveler requests deletion of questionably notable bio of someone he dislikes = defaults to keep. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support as illustrative of practice and the right thing to do. Articles can easily be recreated if they deleted incorrectly, or if the person somehow becomes notable. The same cannot be said for something that is kept. It is always better to err on the side of caution with BLPs, and remove it so there is one less thing to worry about. Majorly talk 13:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am a bit confused, are you saying that if an article is kept it cannot be deleted later? The same can be said of something that is kept see: An article can easily be deleted if it is kept incorrectly. Chillum 14:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• If something is possibly causing harm and it's deleted, while it's deleted it isn't causing harm. It can be brought back later. On the other hand, if something is possibly causing harm and it remains around... it's still causing harm. Better safe than sorry. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• There is also damage to the encyclopedia to be concerned about. I would say that deleting an article that should have been kept is damaging our content. I think BLP should be about preventing actual harm, not taking drastic measures to prevent theoretical harm. BLP already allows for 3RR exempt reversions of edits in violation. Chillum 14:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose new policy, strongly support Jim Wales stepping down permanently. Many of the problems wikipedia has can be attributed to the company culture he has deliberatly cultivated. Ikip (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Are you seriously asking a Wikipedian to "step down" because he has a contrary point of view with you on this issue? This "company culture" you speak of is the foundation that runs this whole thing and set its initial goals to begin with. The very existence of Wikipedia can be attributed to the company culture so don't hold your breath waiting for anyone to step down. Chillum 14:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's a shame this has moved straight to polling when I feel some discussion is in order. Firstly, there is a big difference between a BLP that is up for deletion where the result is "no consensus" and an uncited BLP or one where the debate centers around factual accuracy and the like. A well-cited article about a minor public figure where the debate centers around his notability should not be treated any differently than any other article at AfD. We have no moral obligation to prevent well-cited material from being in here if the only question is to the notability of the subject and this question has ended in no consensus. On the other hand, if the debate is closed as no consensus and after the debate there are still no reliable sources in the article, it may need to be closed as a delete. This would also hold true for BLPs where the no consensus is over "BLP-related issues" so to speak, such as whether a subject can be described from a neutral point of view or whether it an article about the subject would inherently be biased against the subject. I'd support this proposal being worked on some more and codified a bit stricter as not all BLP articles at AfD require special treatment. ThemFromSpace 14:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Just to try to make things clearer for everybody (concerning how this discussion began and how it relates to the Shankbone AfD), I put together this timeline: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone#Shankbone AfD closing timeline -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Strong oppose per the following points:

1. We are not a dead tree encyclopedia, fortunately, so invoking dead-tree criteria is nonsense.

2. "Marginal notability" has no policy/guideline definition I am aware of. It is a can of POV-worms. If it is notable, it is notable. If not, it is not. We already have tons of restrictive BLP guidelines that help prune non-notable people.

3. It gives too much power to the closing admin discretion, making it easier to disregard the community feeling

4. I see no hint it is "accepted practice". I know many editors and admins subscribe to such a point of view, but it's all but clear that they are a majority and even them do not always abide to such a conduct.

5. I see no compelling reason to "default to delete" for no consensus BLPs, unless the discussion has proven serious BLP concerns which cannot be solved by less drastic means like editing, semiprotection and protection, as per the deletion policy: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion..

6. WP:JIMBOSAID.

--Cyclopia^talk 15:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1) Who invoked dead-tree criteria? marginal notability != dead-tree criteria. 2) Marginal notability exists when the community is unable to come to a consensus that a subject is notable. If it needs a definition, it can be defined, but its not like its an undefinable abstract concept. 3) Admins have always had the discretion to do this and several have been doing so. 5) That's basically the "someone will fix it" approach that's gotten us into this mess. If there's a threat of deletion, someone might actually fix it during the AFD, otherwise, no one will be bothered to do so, they'll just argue that it could be fixed and therefore should be kept, regardless of how bad the current state is. Mr.Z-man 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1)The proposer invoked dead-tree criteria: Being kind is more important than having every marginal BLP that no dead tree encyclopedia would have. 2)We have notability guidelines. Even too many of them. If there is no consensus, it means that there is no consensus, not that it is consensually "marginally notable". 3)Admins as far as I understand do not have the discretion to delete articles disregarding the AfD outcome and the current "default to keep" policy 5)"Someone will fix it" is how this encyclopedia works. We have no deadline, we're not in a hurry and the deletion policy says that if it can be fixed by editing, so be it. Note it says "can", not "will", see above. --Cyclopia^talk 19:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, a definition of "marginally notable" is not an unresolvable issue, its a minor one at most. I fail to see what the number of guidelines has to do with anything at all. Or we could just go with the definition of marginal - "at the lower extent of a standard" - given that WP:N is a standard, that shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Admins have always had discretion, contrary to what some people might say, WP:IAR does in fact apply to everything on Wikipedia, not just things that aren't related to deletion. Its a good thing we're not in a hurry, because at our current rate, our BLP issues will be solved approximately 10 years after never. "Someone will fix it" is not how the encyclopedia works, or at least not how its supposed to, its supposed to be "'you' can fix it", not "point out the problem so someone can maybe consider fixing it a couple years from now." Wikipedia works by editors fixing problems that they encounter, Wikipedia stagnates by people just tagging the problems (or in this case just acknowledging that they exist) and hoping someone else will deal with them. Mr.Z-man 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Lower extent"...how low? And how do you decide it is at the "lower extent". Come on, it becomes easy for everyone to argue that almost everyone not being the current POTUS or an Oscar winner is of "marginal notability", if arguing smart enough. The point is: We have notability guidelines for people. Even too many of them. These guidelines tell us who is notable and who is not, and they are already fairly arbitrary thresholds (see WP:PORNBIO for example: why Playboy centerfolds are OK and Penthouse's POTM not?). If you are decided to be above the guideline (which is already often hotly debated), you are. If not, you're (probably) not. Or do we have to add arbitrary thresholds on arbitrary thresholds? Moreover, the point is that "no consensus" means that there is no consensus on the notability, not that it is consensually thought to be "marginally notable" -whatever it means. --Cyclopia^talk 12:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If the community is truly incapable of creating a policy definition of 2 English words (one of which already has a policy dentition), then we have far bigger problems than this. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the definition of "marginal notability" (which technically isn't even necessary to define if we just say "default to delete on no consensus") as anything more than a distraction to real issues. Mr.Z-man 16:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose (and agree that this is a bad time for such a change and this discussion). Yes, if someone requests deletion, we should weight this request. But globally defaulting to delete for just one class of articles is further WP:CREEP and not a good idea. One reason for default to keep is to avoid fighting the same battle over and over again when contentious articles are recreated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, why exactly is this a bad time? This has nothing to do with Shankbone. There's always some AfD or another that some person or another is going to claim is controversial. We have been deleting things under admin discretion this way for some time now, the wording change just allows written policy to catch up to practice. (++Lar: t/c 16:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I think you are wrong in claiming that "this has nothing to do with Shankbone". The change was made during the closing phase of the AfD, by an involved admin who had previously argued for deletion (on DRV), and who then used that change to justify his very controversial close as "delete". This is not "some person or other" claiming controversy, these are many experienced users, many of them admins. Adn "we" have not been deleting things this way. I think this change should be discussed independent from the current AfD, and I don't think this can be achieved now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Default to delete is just the right thing to do and those of you that are oppposing are a bunch of meanies. That's a semi facetious comment, but if you're opposing this, go look in a mirror, and repeat to yourself that we are supposed to be excellent to each other, to be nice, to be respectful of those that our widely publicised pages might harm, and then look deep within yourself and see if having a bunch of marginal BLPs around that often end up wildly slanted, or vandalism targets, or worse, is really the sort of project you want to be associated with. If after that little exercise you want to default to keep, well then, yes you are a big meanie. For shame. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Lar, you are not a kind of ethical authority that can tell us from heavens what is "right" or "wrong". It is the right thing for you and for people who agree with you, nothing else. Much less you can tell people that disagree with you that are meanies or that should shame: should I remind an administrator of WP:NPA? Please accept that there are different viewpoints on what is considered right or wrong, and accept that ethics is not an absolute. That said, I stand even more strongly after your comment by default to keep. Because you made it clear that there is no reason to default to delete apart from a very idiosyncratic POV on the existence of "marginal BLP" (without even a definition of "marginal"). The project I want to be associated with is a project which doesn't self-censor for a vague "might harm" handwaving. It is a project which encompasses as much as possible notable informaton in a reliable way. It is a project which exists to be an encyclopedia, not a charity. And I have no shame for that, I am proud of that. What I would be ashamed of, is a project which is so insecure about itself to decide to self-censor itself. --Cyclopia^talk 16:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite well-stated. "Avoid harm" is an admirable goal, taken on its own. But the primary goal of Wikipedia is to be a free repository of all human knowledge. Our gamble is on "more information is better". The current (?as of yesterday?) policy allows for special consideration of the subject - that goes far enough to avoid harm. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"It is a project which encompasses as much as possible notable informaton in a reliable way. " Actually, it's not. That might be the GOAL, but it's not the outcome. Take a look at how many articles needed to be protected and how many more need it but haven't been. That's all the moral authority I need. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That should be "all the moral authority [you] need" to protect the articles, not to delete them without consensus (or a request from the subject of the biography). user:J aka justen (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Call me a meanie if you will, but it seems to me that the issues behind our normal default to "keep" stance don't go away just because the subject is a living person. A blanket "default to delete" is just too broad of a change to address BLP problems. I would support an advisory that admins should take BLP issues into consideration when adjudicating AfDs, but deleting articles when there is no consensus to delete them is just too sweeping a change. A person can be against "having a bunch of marginal BLPs around that often end up wildly slanted, or vandalism targets, or worse" and still oppose this proposal. Powers ^T 18:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Shame on you, Lar, for using those kind of tactics, which are definitely not in keeping with "we are supposed to be excellent to each other, to be nice, to be respectful". I oppose defaulting to delete, because it's not the right solution for the problem of negative, unsourced BLPs. POV and sourcing issues are, and have always been, editing issues. Whack it out with a chainsaw if needed, but there's no call to delete. Sure, it will be in the history (although that can be fixed without deleting the whole article), but it would also be in the history if a vandal came along and replaced the article with "This person is a (insert derogatory term of your choosing here)" We don't delete the article when that happens (which is certainly unsourced negative information), so what's the need to delete for other unsourced negative info? If we need to fix issues with edits that shouldn't stay in history, or bad editors, let's focus on that issue. Don't use deletion as a means of throwing the baby out with the bath water.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - this isn't about Shankbone at all - it's about using that AfD to create a policy that was rejected. User:Jake Wartenberg, the "close no consensus default to delete" admin, took a two sentence biography with spurious sources of Yll Hoxha and in an AfD with six deletes and six keeps, did a "close no consensus default to keep" just on October 9th. Here we had five mainstream sources (Columbia Journalism Review, Brooklyn Rail, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, Jewish Week) and better arguments to keep. No, not about Shankbone at all. Go Yll Hoxha! --LooptyLoos (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure what point you are trying to make here, and some people seem to be missing what the language of the proposed change said, namely that no consensus AfDs on marginally notable bio articles may default to delete, basically at administrator discretion, not that they must. So if Jake Wartenberg was a believer in this principle (and I'm not defending his edit of the policy while the Shankbone AfD was running—that was clearly wrong, as was his choice to close the AfD), it would not at all be inconsistent for him to close Yll Hoxha as default to keep and David Shankbone default to delete. Presumably the argument one would make (certainly the one I would make) is that there were already BLP related problems with the Shankbone article and a strong argument was made in the AfD that these problems would continue, whereas that did not seem to be an issue for the Yll Hoxha article. Speaking as an admin who does close AfDs from time to time, I would only use the "no consensus, default to delete" option when there was a strong argument in the AfD that this was necessary because of BLP issues in the article. Perhaps we could reword the proposed change somewhat to make that more clear. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• The "may" word does not make the problem go away. The point is: If no consensus is reached to change the status of an article, the default to stay with the status quo until consensus comes out. If we give free choice to delete whenever there is no consensus, we basically make debated AfD outcomes almost completely dependent on the arbitrary admin will, meaning that admins will be given green light to disregard community processes, if they wish, whenever they are not bound by a huge majority of one side. Admins are human beings and have biases and preferences like anyone else, and as much as I appreciate their work, I wouldn't like them being able to delete articles only based on their own personal opinion. Otherwise we could shut down AfD and let individual admins decide. I hope no one sincerely wants that. --Cyclopia^talk 18:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• If this proposal gained consensus, which already looks like it won't happen unfortunately, then it would not mean that "admins will be given green light to disregard community processes," it would mean that a community process had been changed in such a manner to give admins a green light to use their discretion on a certain class of AfDs (we already require them to use their discretion on AfDs in general when they determine "rough consensus", which is undoubtedly a judgment call, so it's not an enormous leap). The change could be worded in such a manner that is set real limits on what admins could do (e.g. marginally notable BLPs could be deleted if and only if there was a strong (and specific, as opposed to general) BLP-related argument in the AfD, which for 98% of BLP AfDs is simply not the case), and if any one admin got out of control they would certainly hear about it from the community. Ultimately what we are talking about is giving admins one other choice in how they close a certain set of BLPs. They already have three choices, and are already biased humans with their own opinions, so I don't think what is being proposed is remotely as radical as folks seem to be suggesting here. I think there are ways to word the policy such that it would be difficult to abuse it, and maybe we should have started by talking about that rather than supporting/opposing right off the bat. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Policy should not be changed to reflect practice. That's what discussion and consensus building is for. Rather, practice should itself be changed to reflect policy until that policy is changed through due process. Marginal notability defaults to notability and to keep. Lack of notability, marginal or not, is what defaults to delete. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is completely wrong. The only reason ever to change a policy is retrospectively to recognize to observe that the actual practice is no longer matching what the policy had stated. The real discussion here should focus on whether in the recent past, if people involved in the article editing and deletions have been behaving as if the proposed change was already in effect. patsw (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, MichaelQSchmidt is correct. If a few editors or even admins are acting contrary to policy, it is their actions that should change, not the policy. The policy should be changed based on discussion and consensus. Rlendog (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Firstly, Wikipedia affects real lives and reputations. If you're unlucky enough to have a Wikipedia biography about you, it can damage your reputation and even impact your ability to find work. We have a responsibility to promote and encourage good quality and reliable BLPs, but we also have a duty to ensure that those that fall short of the standards required are deleted. But why do we need to go the extra bit and ensure that those articles that we as a community just can't make our mind up on get deleted as well? Quite simply because it is in exactly this grey area that most of our problems occur. If you're a veteran politician or a popular musician, you probably don't have much to fear from issues with your biography. If you're a celebrity restaraunt critic or similar you might have more concerns about content, especially when it gets referenced in interviews with you. If you're even more obscure and only borderline notable, anything your article says has an even larger impact. It's for these people whose biographies inhabit the grey middle ground who need our protection moreso than the rest, and who should be afforded our protection. Secondly, this isn't about purging well sourced material. An article that clearly passes our policies for inclusion is likely to result in a strong keep vote at AfD. It's only those articles on the borderline - that already suffer from sourcing issues - that would be deleted in these cases. Also, deletion isn't forever - if better sourcing comes to light the article can always be sandboxed and improved upon. Thirdly, BLPs are a large workload for the OTRS volunteers. They are tricky subjects and difficult to resolve, and take a large amount of our volunteers limited time. We are reaching a point in time where volunteer effort in this project as a whole is fading (see list of acive admins etc), and it's right to make some sensible choices about how that effort is best used. We can no longer rely on unclear or inefficient policy, just shrug our shoulders and think that OTRS, or Admins, or BLP patrol will clear it up afterwards. We have to grasp the nettle and say that for some issues like these we have to implement fixes that may not be the most desirable in a perfect editing environment, but that are the fairest, most transparent and most straightforward we can manage. Many thanks, Gazimoff 18:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  In addition, I would encourage anyone who opposes this motion to try out volunteering for OTRS and working the quality queue for a while. Gazimoff 18:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  Is that an invitation, or just the standard blowoff? Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would be happy to help with OTRS but I understood it was only for trusted admins (and rightly so). I will have a look. --Cyclopia^talk 18:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's a genuine suggestion. OTRS isn't an admin-only thing, and I'd encourage anyone to apply to join. What I'm trying to say is that it's not right that we only look at the end result that's displayed to our readers, but that we also look at the feedback those readers provide us and how hard or time consuming it can be to resolve some of that feedback. I'm not asking you to take my word for it, or even the word of Cary Bass (who runs OTRS). I'm suggesting that you apply and see it for yourself. Read some of the emails, listen to the voicemails, respond to the issues these people bring to us. Then come back here and revisit this issue, and see if you still feel the same way. Many thanks, Gazimoff 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the ticket queue provides insight into the many wp:blp issues we face here, and the same goes for wp:blp/n, which I have spent some time at trying to assist resolving issues, including two notable ones that I recall where arguable notability combined with vocal detractors as anonymous editors made the situations particularly challenging for the biography subjects. In both of those cases, time, mediation, and a lot of patience resulted in resolutions that all sides agreed with. All of this to say that I agree deletion has its place, and if either of those two individuals had requested deletion, I would have supported their requests. Deletion should not, however, be carried out without that request or without community consensus. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that I lack the je ne sais quoi that the OTRS mailing-list requires per what I consider reliable evaluation. I'm sitting in the dead OTRS IRC channel per the meta page waiting for someone to request help. I'll do that in lieu of being poked and prodded by max-level MMOchampions at meta. Hipocrite (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I see several issues here. (i) Subjects of articles that are seen as having marginal notability can ask to have their articles removed and that would tip any no consensus scale to delete. (ii) As they are living people who have already gained at least borderline notability ... seemingly they are simply one or two interviews or other media coverage about them to meet the GNG. (iii) The very real next step of logic is that all discussions should be ruled as default to delete unless an umambiguous keep is proven. Thus gaming the systems for those that seem to be into that becomes that much easier. (iv) The default to keep seems to work well in that it presumes that with more time and attention an article can and will improve. We still waste a lot of good content that our readers want when alternatives are readily available but unfortunately the entire XfD system thrives on a battleground basis instead of working to ultimately serve our readers. This is seen repeated daily and the very people who are willing to do the work are repelled by the perpetual toxic atmosphere. IMHO, this will only add fuel to an already contentious area serving only those who wish to simply delete content - we instead should reward assessment and finding ways to keep the best material. I think we fall very short in that. -- Banjeboi 19:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I do work at OTRS (though I don't see a "quality" queue, just the normal vandalism, courtesy etc. queues; does one need to apply especially?) as well as at AfD and I can't say that I remember a case where such a deletion policy would have been required to delete an actually harmful BLP article. Such cases are normally rather extraordinary and can be dealt with under CSD or BLP rules directly. That means I don't think the "do no harm" argument is applicable here. Whether it is more generally desirable to have more borderline notable articles around is another question, but I have no clear and general opinion on that subject.  Sandstein  19:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support Until such time as WP can make a reasonable assurance that material on a living person, who serves to be potentially damaged by writings here, is protected, monitored, otherwise, this is to me the only sensible option. "SOFIXIT", etc, etc, do nothing to solve the root problem. Why should a subject of a BLP that is inaccurate and/or defamatory have to find someone who is NOTCOI to fix these issues? They shouldn't. Achromatic (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. We have too many marginally notable BLPs that prove to be unmaintainable. Not only are these unfair to their subjects, they also reflect poorly on Wikipedia. Until and unless a better solution can be found, we should default to deleting them. *** Crotalus *** 19:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting is not a way to clean. The policy states clearly that if an article can be improved by editing, it should not be deleted but improved. We have protection and semiprotection for problematic cases, and why can't we use these tools to avoid BLP troubles instead of shutting down content even if no consensus to delete exists? --Cyclopia^talk 22:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Per comment above, we don't even have enough personnel to watch clearly-notable BLPs. Privacy issues must ever trump content issues. I'm amazed that all the people above who are NOT posting under their birth names, don't see that. What goes around, comes around. I don't want to see Wikipedia become an internet repository for any piece of biographical information on living people which gets loose, and is published somewhere, by anybody. Particularly in this day and age when internet publication (not just WP) is almost completely unregulated due to CDA sec 230. SBHarris 20:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, we're not talking of completely unnotable people. These are already deleted, and privacy is protected as such. We are talking of people for which there are enough sources to be unable to reach a consensus on what to do. This usually means that even a problematic article is based on some kind of public source. Privacy concerns are already dealt with other policies, and they are irrelevant here. --Cyclopia^talk 20:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support default to delete. Oppose admin discretion. We can have only one default position. My preference is that it be delete; if the community decides that it should be keep, so be it. Either way, it should not be within the gift of any individual editor, admin or not, to override the default position. If the community is unable to find consensus, it shouldn't then issue an open invitation to any passing admin: we can't decide, you choose. The whole point of a default position is that it obtains in the absence of a consensus against it. Talk of allowing an admin to choose to default to keep or default to delete is really just talk of handing personal discretionary control over content to a single editor. MoreThings (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The community needs to understand BLP, and the !voters should understand the importance of BLP, and presumably, the !voters understand that real BLP concerns weigh in favour of deletion. If the !voters don't understand this, then they need it better explained to them. It is not desirable to have processes or individuals in the habit of overriding the community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry to nitpick here, but the problem being described is one where there is no clear consensus from the community if an article should be deleted or not. If there's a clear indication that it should be kept or deleted, then it's quite right that an admin should carry out the community's will. But for those situations where it's not clear either way, the reccomendation is that the article be deleted precisely because of the importance of BLPs. Hope this helps. Gazimoff 21:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support Per Lar, Jimbo, Alison, and others, including Common Sense. Privacy, marginal notability, the all-too-common libel and slander that happens—all point to 'we have way too many non-notable bios for a serious encyclopedia.' Priyanath ^talk 21:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't believe in giving admins discretion as it invites capricious decisions from people whose judgments are no better nor worse than those of ordinary editors, and the results of which lead to unknown outcomes and drawn-out dramas. I believe in default-to-keep, given our philosophy and attempt to become the summation of human knowledge, with a default to delete if the subject requests it for borderline notability with no clear consensus. I'm well aware of the problems with BLPs. -->David Shankbone 22:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support for Default to Delete with a side of WTF for the people who are saying that there's too many tools for admins to enforce BLP. Default to Delete and Liberal Semi is the least we should be doing to protect living people as much as possible from being defamed by Wikipedia. How many Siegenthalers.. how many Fuzzy Zoellers.. How many do we need to get it through our heads that the potential for Wikipedia to do serious unwarranted harm to people. SirFozzie (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Different I don't like, and in fact oppose, "default to delete". I also, for marginal BLPs, don't like, and in fact oppose, "default to keep". Both "default to" positions are too easy to abuse. I prefer the standard of "follow consensus if there is one, if there is not allow the administrator to apply judgment". This has previously been recorded in the BLP policy for subject requested deletions as allowing the admin to decide how much weight to assign to the subject's request. (I don't follow the policy on a regular basis to know if it is still there in that form or when it changed if it has.) I know that many such decisions will end up going to DRV. DRV isn't exactly overworked, could readily handle another case or two per day, and the precedent condition of whether or not there was a consensus can be tested by DRV editors just the same way they test the existence of consensus on other XfDs on a day in and day out basis - if they find that there was not consensus, then the closing admin's judgment will usually be endorsed. GRBerry 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

random break

• DRV on the Shankbone AfD has been started [3] JohnWBarber (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Me and my wife were talking about this all afternoon as we went for one of our drives. We stopped at this little spot by the lake and I lit up one of my cigars. She made the very reasonable point that Wikipedia has a duty to the people whose biographies it carries. If someone has their biography up here it is a big deal - because it means any no good street punk can sidle onto their article and start hacking at it with a tyre iron. If my wife was ever a minor photographer or someone who made a blimp, I wouldnt want some little teenage bastard putting a claim on there that she once choked a horse to death, unless she actually did. If you're salman rushdie or soemone that famous, then it's unavoidable - we'd be laughed out of town on the end of a long dance parade if we deleted salman's article. But someone minor? I'd want to know it was pretty certain that they should have a biography on here, not that a load of people talked about it and couldn't make up their minds. Just as it is the burden of the person adding the information to prove it's the case, it should be the burden of the people who want wikipedia to carry this article that it's worthy of being here, and to face the consequences when someone like Bob Cherry^[who?] complains that some kid has put that he hacked a busload of kids to death with a chainsaw and that it's been up there for three months. If it can't be proved, they can't be kept. I thought she was speaking a great heap of sense, so once I'd put out my cigar and driven us home, I thought I'd give you just our two cents. Yours, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is there an rss feed of your posts? I'd quite enjoy subscribing. It's like our own sort of version of A Prairie Home Companion. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nod. The posts certainly are all above average! For me, I just want to know what kind of cigar it was. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting prose apart, I still wait for a definition of "minor" or "marginable" notability. I want to remind everyone, again, that "no consensus" means that there is no consensus on the notability, not that editors agree that it is of marginal notability. --Cyclopia^talk 00:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that typically the same thing though? We have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand for notability, and if editors cannot agree which side a subject falls on then I would have though that meets the definition of "marginal". Kevin (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a subtle but, in my opinion, not meaningless distinction. Example, rather artificial but not too much: Imagine we have a discussion about a BLP of a guy from, say, Mongolia (just a random choice). Few or no sources in English seem to exist on the guy, and a bunch of !deletes come out. Someone brings up some Mongolian sources, and a debate ensues about their reliability, which is affected by the fact that only one editor is able to read them and assess them. The sources in truth were truly enough for notability, but almost no one knows, and it is hard to decide -discussion closes as nc. That's just an example, but lots of situations like that, even if less blatant, happen every day on AfD. --Cyclopia^talk 01:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(continuing the hypothetical scenario) So, seeing that we have no idea whether the person is notable and the only sources are extremely difficult to verify, and we have no idea whether anyone is ever going to actually do so, we err on the side of caution and delete the article. If someone later manages to prove that the sources establish notability then they can DRV the article, or just create a new version, based on the sources (since the original was apparently unreferenced); the reason for deletion would be addressed, so it wouldn't meet the G4 CSD. Mr.Z-man 03:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok if you like it so, but it was not "consensus of marginal notability". It was "no consensus on notability". That's the point. People here want to defend "marginally notable" people without realizing that such a concept is much more problematic than it seems at a first look.--Cyclopia^talk 14:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to disagree, would you mind at least arguing about the reasoning (the important part), rather than the semantics? What we call it is not important, the important part is why we do it (erring on the side of caution). Mr.Z-man 16:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe simplistic, but I see a two-way street. In the closure of any no-consensus AfD (and lets presume that consensus was not reached because notability was marginal.. acccepted as existing per guideline, but not overwhelming), in order to justify a delete it should be shown how or why the keeping the article would harm the subject per WP:BLP and that such harm could not be corrected through normal editing prossesses. If there is no harm and there is no consensus, the default should be to maintain the staus quo... which would default to close as keep... and walk away until next time. Before any such close... keep or delete... due process must be followed in order to preserve the integrity of the project and its indivudual editors. And no, I'm not saying to keep something because it does no harm... I'm saying that a delete of a non-consensus closure should hapen ONLY if it can be shown how a keep would harm the subject. Status quo folks... status quo. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Give up, people, this has been mooted before and it will not happen.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you have an actual opinion on this, or are you just opposing because other people have in the past? Mr.Z-man 03:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have an opinion. I've expressed it on a number of occasions in a number of different venues. The issue is that every time this idea gets voted down, we have another discussion "just to make sure". I'm quite sure it will resurface several more times yet.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per "In truth, the aim of an encyclopédie is to collect all knowledge scattered over the face of the earth...All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia. Bad faith accounts make deliberate attention grabbing and disgraceful errors in articles on real people as noted here, but we would be foolish to delete the article discussed there just because of a bad apple that made the ridiculous edit. Deleting specific diffs that contain personal attacks on real people that could mar them in real life could be justifiable and we absolutely should be vigilant against such vandalism, but certainly not to the point of eliminating the articles themselves. Doing so is actually letting the vandals win by bullying us and scaring us away from being as comprehensive of an encyclopedia as we can and should be. If anything, perhaps we should be just as concerned about not having discussions in which editors make these sorts of over the top comments (I have seen a number of such insults in Afds by participants against the subject under discussion...such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Dwire in which the first TWO deletes by two different editors following the nomination refer to a president by whimsical nicknames; how can we be taken seriously if an article is deleted and we are left with what looks more like mocking reasons for deletion rather than academic reasons and I know people well enough to know that they zero in on the name calling when reading such things). I can never get the logic behind it being okay to delete an article on someone, then having on the redlink page, something like deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Random BLP, which the subject of the former article and any interested party can read only to see these smears on him or her by the Wikipedians who determine the article's fate. How it is better for us to not have an article that is of interest to someone, but to keep a discussion with swearing and other jibes makes little to no sense. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  For that reason AFDs may be courtesy-blanked. In addition all AFDs are excluded from search engine access (via MediaWiki:Robots.txt). Rd232 ^talk 16:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Fully support with my mind, body and soul Admins just need to start doing this and to hell with what anybody says otherwise. Sometimes you just gotta do what's right and hope that eventually policy will be dragged along with the practice. This is almost enough to make me ask for my admin bit again. almost, but not quite Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  I certainly appreciate the ardor of your comment... but it is my understanding that Admins enforce policy, but do not create it nor are they to act outside of it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed, and admin who does the "right thing(tm)" in their mind against the wishes of the community ceases to be a servant to the community and will also cease to be an admin before too long. Chillum 14:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  So what? Is being an admin on some website more important than the harm done to innocent people by keeping around lousy, unwatched articles about them? That's sick. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support per Lar, per Lara. Marginally notable people should not be covered here; marginally notable *anything* should not be here. In the case of BLP that have no strong ground under them, just delete them; it's the humane thing to do. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• oppose This is a really bad idea. We've repeatedly have people push for it and the community has repeatedly said no. The primary problem is very simple: This doesn't solve anything substantially. The BLPs that are problems aren't the ones that are getting massive look-throughs at AfD pages. Once a BLP is at AfD and has anywhere near enough people commenting that one could reasonably define a lack of consensus then the page has been looked at by many people and many people will have it on their watchlist. That's not the sort of BLP that's a problem. The primary BLP problem are the many BLPs that no one is paying careful attention to, those vulnerable to repeated POV pushing, libel and the like. This is a bad idea that will simply delete many articles while doing nothing to actually solve any substantial BLP problems. Seriously cutting the nose to spite the face. There are many good ideas about what we should do to improve the BLP situation. Flagged revisions is the biggest one. We need to focus on dealing with the genuinely helpful things and not kid ourselves that everything that on its surface sounds like it will help the BLP situation will actually do much. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the JoshuaZ summary completely. I wonder why can't we discuss, for example, semiprotection by default on BLP articles instead than deletion? --Cyclopia^talk 12:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We can discuss it... in fact, I'm all for it (in addition, rather than instead). However unlike default to delete, a practice that has been done repeatedly, and has survived for some time, even if it's not done consistently, there is no support at all for default to semi. Even User:Lar/Liberal Semi (where if there was clear evidence of repeated or egregious vandalism, a BLP would get semi for a significantly longer period (but not indef) than the norm) ran into a lot of people sniping at it. So I don't think that it's an alternative. Application of it tends to get reverted quickly. Unlike default to delete where the track record is that most closes that way don't get overturned. ++Lar: t/c 15:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Lar that there are multiple options here. Having the option to delete in a no consensus BLP of marginal notability would be just one way to deal with the BLP problem, and I could easily imagine instances where it would be useful. I know I'm not the only editor here who has come across marginal BLPs with some really problematic stuff in them, cleaned them up, and then watchlisted them. But I might have been the only regular editor to look at it, and since I'm hardly on Wiki all the time I could easily miss future BLP defamation and/or completely forget about the article completely. Maybe I think the article should just be deleted since I'm worried we can't protect it adequately, but if I think it passes the notability bar (albeit not by much) there's not much point taking it to AfD given the current deletion policy. If we make this slight adjustment in policy to allow for the possibility of deleting BLPs that are technically but marginally notable, then it provides another way for editors on a BLP patrol to deal with the problems they encounter. Each would be handled on a case by case basis, and (in my view at least) the closing admin would not be required to delete the article if there was no consensus, it would just be an option. As I said there are times where that would be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. There are enough problems as it is with rogue admins. Now we wish to give them even more power? Nuts. The agenda of the group (as mentioned somewhere above) that keeps appearing on the same AfD's, DelRev's and discusses at WR etc. needs to be examined. I suspect it is the same group that is pushing for this rule change. I try to imagine what kind of an admin goes into policy and enacts a change in rules in order to close per his wishes, and I see an admin psychopath who needs be impeached (or whatever you call it here when admins are turned away). I try to imagine what the motivations of a group that wants this change is, and I see (on the innocent side) a bored bunch to whom Wiki means so much that they wish to make it very difficult for BLP's to be put on because marginal BLP articles would discredit their involvement with Wiki, on the sinister side I can discern a bunch that wishes to eventually control much of the content on Wiki by having strength in numbers. Editors, I implore you to not allow this change, it is a step in the wrong direction. Turqoise127 (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to your views, but we don't suggest that other editors are psychopaths. That's completely out of line, and quite frankly ridiculous given the circumstances. Please try to assume good faith a bit more, both because it's the right thing to do and because people are far more likely to listen to what you say. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Bigtimepeace. Turquoise127, in addition to assuming good faith, please avoid personal attacks, and also invoking conspiracy theories is not going to help your cause being listened. --Cyclopia^talk 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for name calling, have struck out. On the other hand, I do not care much about being popular here, making friends or being liked. In my brief time here I have encountered so many inappropriate things that it makes me puke in my mouth quite frequently. This makes my comments overly-passionate. My take is that this encyclopedia can be a wonderful legacy for future generations. Frankly, AGF seems so childish and outdated to me. Who AGF's in real life? Would you AGF when you are getting wronged (I really wanted to say f....d, see, self-control)? What is different here, just the same people that are out there in real life, with personal agendas and motivations. Anyhow, an admin must be impartial, polite, knowlegeable, eloquent, must know the rules and interpret/apply them correctly, not have a Napoleon syndrome, not be deletionist or inclusionist. And must give thorough rationale for closures (otherwise has too much power). I do not see this happening, nor do I see too many admins displaying the traits I mention. And now, let's let them have even more power! My point on groupations is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact of life. I did not say they are zombies. It is natural that similar minded persons stick together, my point is nothing is being done to discourage this behavior.

In conclusion, to rephrase my comments with AGF, pretty flowers please all you well meaning deletionists with absolutely no alterior motives, hug hug, kiss kiss, I beg to humbly and modestly say that I oppose this idea, please do not be mad, I deeply apologize, chocolate and puppies. Turqoise127 (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My wife's friend Wanda has the problem where she pukes in her mouth, and I have to say it also makes her overly passionate. This is not a good combination for a man like myself who is quite revolted by vomit. I agree with your rules for the admin, but I would add that they must be chivalrous, as well as pure in word, thought and deed. They must not be like Napoleon, or indeed Stalin or Pinochet or any of these unsavoury sorts. They must strive for the noble cause of the encyclopaedia, and whenever they must decide the outcome of an AFD, they have the weight of history on their shoulders. Those who do not meet up shall be consigned to the flames, for they contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

I pity the well meaning deletionists - they do not understand how essential our articles on minor actors, lighting designers and sports stars are to the world's sum of knowledge, and how we must couple this with vigilance to ensure no damaging slurs are printed on their biographies and Google. It's not a paper encyclopaedia, after all!

Yours, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be lying if I said your comment did not make me laugh. Almost to the point of another mouth puke. The wife thing must be pretty rough when it is time to give a kiss...

Anyhow, your point is taken, but you over simplify a bit. I do not think I ask too much of admins (although I like the weight of history and consigned to flames bits) if I propose they should not be obviously impartial. And I think you know I am not referring to lighting designers, minor actors and curb-side taco sellers, I am talking marginally notable subjects of some certain value... You did brighten up my day a bit though...Turqoise127 (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Jimbo was making a general comment about ethics of biographies, not a specific one about what to do with 'no consensus' Afds. Before we start hailing his opinions and using it as wedge, I want to hear what Jimbo would do with this Wikipedian's biography, which has actually been kept multiple times (yet none since May 2007, a long time ago in BLP policy terms), because to me, it looks no different in quality or substance than Shankbone's biography. MickMacNee (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that he appears to be of two minds on the issue: "every single person on the planet" (here, last sentence). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

N: I think that's an incomplete quote. You left out the bolded part in this longer quote "I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet" and you omitted the context of the earlier paragraphs where he talked about how hard it is to maintain good, neutral, non hatchet job bios. I agree that "in theory" a bio on every single person on the planet would be OK,... IF we had something akin to Maxwell's Demon to make sure they were prefetly good and perfectly neutral. But that doesn't exist in practice. Better safe than sorry. If we cannot do a good job, we should do no harm by doing no job at all. Conserve our scarce resources. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean to be making a point about our dear leader's confused state of mind re Shankbone. For the nth time, there were no problems of neutrality in that bio. Why then wouldn't Wales want a biography on him, if (at least for that one) neutrality isn't a problem and "in theory" billions of (neutral) biographies would be a good thing? Again, he's confused. No reason to give it any weight. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"were no problems of neutrality in that bio" ... good choice of past tense there. Should it come back, give it time. I'd start a pool on when the thing gets semi'ed due to persistent vandalism but that's too easy to rig. And before you point out that it can be kept clean with effort, tell me which 20 other articles, more important, and farl less likely vandalism targets, we should abandon so we have the needed effort available. For what? A puff piece. This was a good close. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

MMN: That's a reasonable question. Why don't you ask him? Or I will if I remember. I know you didn't ask but that bio seems to have quite a bit more notability inherent in it, as Connolley seems to be published in the scientific literature multiple times. I'd cut the Wikipedia Work section way down though. (but here I am saying what I'd say in an AfD that isn't even this subject's AfD :) ... rather far afield. ) ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Take alook at WP:ACADEMIC. If that were the sum total of his publications, on face value it would definitely not mark him out as a particlarly noted academic. People can rack off five or ten before they even get their Doctorate, depending on their actual amount of input they put in. (Connolley appears to have only been the primary author of about 5 of those papers as well) MickMacNee (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think discussions about wikipedian biographies should be kept distinct from discussions about biographies generally. I lean toward deleting wikipedia related articles because they are very often navel-gazing in the extreme, but the community tends to disagree w/ me. Protonk (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn that community. Bless its heart. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fabrictramp and JoshuaZ. Also agree with MuZemike et al. that this is not the best time for discussion. The tone of some of the supporters does not help things. Tim Song (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is not the correct solution to the problem. Deletion is, ideally, a last resort measure to deal with articles that cannot be fixed in any way. There are other solutions to this problem, and they should be used rather than this. Chainsaws and barricades are preferable to bombs, as others have said. lifebaka++ 18:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as I have argued before in that last discussion on this topic here and on the previous discussion on the BLP talk page a year or two ago. I do not see why BLPs should default to delete as opposed to any article in which BLP material is included such as events, elections, etc, and sooner or later if this is successful default to delete will be proposed/stealth introduced by individual admin decision for those articles. Combined with the ease in which a few editors can make a discussion lack consensus, this is a stealth way in which editors can in effect make inlcusion of articles in wikipedia harder. I have seen nothing to make me change my opinion from previous discussions, although I continue to support flagged revisions for any/all BLPs which would be a far better way to improve protection for ALL BLP subjects rather than just a few where someone nominates them for deletion. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose If a person who barely satisfies WP:BIO or who had minor notability but is mostly known for one bad thing requests deletion, I would favor it. Otherwise, if an article satisfies WP:N, "no consensus" should default to "keep" as for other articles. This proposal would inevitably be used on occasion to advance some admin's cause, whatever it might be. It also smacks of censorship. Edison (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose with qualification: The default in the case of No Consensus should certainly not be to delete the whole thing. The strongest negative default in such cases should be to keep the article as a place-holder with the basic verifiable facts, such as date and place of birth, public offices held, and maybe significant works. If protection or semi-protection is required to stop vandalism or defamation, so be it, but at least those looking for more information about Adolph Q. Notorious, who's suddenly appeared in the headlines or a trivia quiz, won't find a red-link and be tempted to create their own article. The very fact that about half those who've commented on a BLP article think it's notable enough to keep suggests that the default should be to keep the verifiable information so long as it's reasonably balanced (not everyone with a rap sheet or multiple divorces gets into Wikipedia, and if that's the only verifiable information besides birth and schooling, we should probably omit the negative records.) —— Shakescene (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Notablity is a guideline. So long as the article is neutral, verified by reliable sources, and adheres to BLP, a lack of consensus on notability should not override policy to result in deletion. If you want to delete what you see as marginal biogs then be more persuasive at AfD. Fences&Windows 00:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose AFD participants should allready be thinking about BLP issues when they make their vote, there is no need to account for the same thing twice. Icewedge (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with the premise that the default should be 'delete', particularly under those circumstances I mention below. Whilst I accept that WP is a work in progress, it is mentioned several times above the potential for issues, such as promotion and abuse, is amplified with lesser known individuals. I believe the chances of a bias-free article approximates to zero in many of these cases, and should be deleted if in doubt. A biography of a person meeting WP:BIO should be properly sourced, completely free of blatant promotion AND unsourced negative information. Anything short of this is worthy of a Speedy, in my view. I disliked the way the proponent of this debate started it with a Jimbo quote - not very necessary, and irrelevant, IMHO. I don't think the wishes of the subject (or indeed Jimmy Wales, perish the thought) should be written into the policy in the way that it has, though - to me, it reads like they have a casting vote for deletion - which they ought not to. (Clarification: I don't think the subject's view in this matter (or Jimbo's) should carry any more or less weight as any other editor) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - there is no compelling reason why BLPs should have different inclusion standards than other articles. I have never seen any evidence to demonstrate that deleting barely notable living persons would have any effect on our BLP problems. Indeed, in my experience it is the clearly notable (but not extremely notable) ones that are the most susceptible to lingering libel and related problems. Allowing admins to delete based on "no consensus" is a license for admins to delete most controversial BLP figures as nearly always some people will argue for deletion. 75% keep !votes is often a legitimate "no consensus" outcome in passionate debates. Pick any controversial figure and you'll probably get 25% delete votes, which means the closing admin could use their discretion to close as "no consensus," delete, and probably not be overturned by DRV. That is not a situation I want to see anytime soon.
  Finally, from a philosophical standpoint "no consensus" should never be used to take final action on a subject. "Keeping for now" is not final action, but deletion effectively is as the barriers to recreation after AfD deletion are quite high. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The definition of 'no consensus' probably needs a rejig if that is the case. Excepting the arguments, I would call a 75:25 vote a clear keep. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This needs to have more limited application. If there is concern that an article is a particular target for BLP vios, or if the subject requests deletion, this may be a good idea. (though I'm concerned it would practically make such deletions irreversible). If you're just debating whether some professor or politician or footballer is notable, there's no need to change the rules. 140.247.248.180 (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Mild oppose- honestly, i have no opinion on Mr. Shankbone's article, however I do think policy was violated in that case, hence my comment in the most recent DRV. That said, someone earlier on said it better than I: if there's no CURRENT issues, such as potential libel, BLP1E, or the subject requesting deletion, then there's no pressing need to delete that policy needs to be re-written. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose, and I suggest we move in the opposite direction. slippery slope arguments are much misused--almost anything could conceivably develop to become mush worse than it is initially. But this is a true s.s. towards the abnegation of POV and the loss of objectivity. We've just proven it. Someone feels so strongly that it ought to be policy, that he makes a surreptitious change to bring it about, in order to support his own view in an AfD, which he then closes according to his view of policy. We never should have accepted even the option of what people want influencing the results, except that they can contribute to the discussion , and be considered as anyone else with Conflict of Interest--and the possibility of an appeal through OTRS if there really is a valid concern, which has certainly happened. We were stampeded into this by one or two public incidents of such vandalism. but in general we have an excellent record. We are about to be trying an extension which would thoroughly deal with such in the future. , if it does manage to work satisfactorily. There's a basic problem with borderline notable for BLP means not covered. First, we already have slightly stronger standards for BLP articles, and this has already dealt with the borderline--what we are now considering the borderline would, without BLP 1E and associated changes, be well within clear notability. Second, it can always be argued that something which is not quite borderline ought to be, and then the standard keeps slipping--an excellent example was the insistence that a full article in Columbia Journalism Review was not significant coverage--when it would have been for any other topic or for any other person. That this was used for an a article on a person that some of us here like very much, and others dislike, shows the lack of objectivity inherent in relaxing the standards for what can be deleted. (I point out that he himself was neutral, and said he had no opinion one way or another). The result is that the standard for BLP will be famous, not notable. I can forsee people arguing that olympic athletes who did not win first place are not famous. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Very Strong Support Here's the thing - forget about when JW made his change and whether you are personally affronted by his action - the question at this forum is; Is the change (repeated below for ease of reference) suitable and usable for admins who are attempting to find appropriate conclusion for BLP articles? IMO Jake puts it simply and well when he changes the words to Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures,especially if the subject has requested deletion, where there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete? For me I must answer the question as to whether this change is suitable or usable with a resounding yes. Okay I have noted the comments about what is a relatively unknown public figure - but that part usually always works itself out as a part of the 5 day AfD process through the normal discussion about weight of sources and the like & for heck's sake articles can be recreated when the subject becomes well known, or the close can go to DRV on the basis of the Admin not reading correctly the level of public awareness of the subject. Much, much more importantly Jake's change reflects exactly what should happen when a relatively unknown non-public figure requests deletion and where the AfD community do not reach an obvious consensus to keep. Please note Jake's suggestion is a two part process - it still therefore includes an "and" connotation. Admins cannot close as delete easily where there is no request by the subject of the article; "and" they cannot close as delete where there is a consensus to keep. Really now, take the whole thing in context and I ask you what exactly is the problem with that process? Nothing because it is exactly what we do here or should do here anyway.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 05:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm leaving this comment only because I've been asked for my views. I was one of the people who first proposed default-to-delete closures for BLPs in 2007, a proposal that failed—see [4]— and people have been wondering if I've changed my mind about it.

  My aim with that proposal was to make it easier for borderline subjects who didn't want BLPs to have them deleted. However, I've been concerned, for the last year or so, at what seems to be a significant tightening of the notability criteria for BLPs, to the point where, as DGG argues, people are now expected to be almost famous rather than simply notable. I'll post links later to some examples if I can find them.

  If we're going to apply very stringent criteria for notability, we can't also have a default-to-delete criterion, because that combination will threaten perfectly viable BLPs. I can't oppose this proposal, because it's coming from the right place, and I still strongly support it for borderline subjects who've said they don't want a bio. But I have concerns about applying it across the board before we've developed a sensible BLP-notability policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I said I'd post some examples. There's a list here of some BLPs Jake's friends were using to show that default delete is common practice. There are only six but several are of concern. John Theon, for example, is a notable scientist. Jeff Schoep is a notable neo-Nazi. Gary Lynch, who had several mentions in The New York Times. I'd support deletion if the subject didn't want it, or if there were intrinsic POV concerns, but in most of the cases listed here neither of those applied. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some time back, an AFD for Ellen Hambro, a subject so notable that a paper encyclopedia set aside space for her biography looked something like this, and that after the paper encyclopedia source had been added. Were it not for heavy action by Geschichte and myself to improve the article, there is a good chance that it would have been a roughly evenly split "no consensus". Let's be blunt: Wikipedia would have been the laughing stock in the Norwegian press if we had deleted that article, and I oppose any policy change which would make the deletion of subjects like that easier. BLP is a policy to ensure that we write good BLPs and to hold a tight and strict standard in ensuring they meet the WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies. It is not a policy to forbid BLPs or declare living people as inherently less notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry but I find the reference you provide unhelpful and slightly disingenous. The more accurate reference is this conclusion which is what the closing admin would have seen at the end of the AfD discussion. Firstly I do not see anywhere that the subject asked for deletion of the article, secondly clearly the subject was considered notable by almost all commentators (even DGG who changed his mind correctly to !vote keep) and so with respect I doubt any Admin would gauge a consensus for anything but keep at the conclusion of the discussion. Indeed Stifle did that on the basis of a clear consensus. From that perspective it would never have been deleted under the proposal that forms the subject of this discussion.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 10:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I had to rewrite almost the entire article before the keep votes started coming in. I went to DGG's talkpage to specifically ask him to reconsider his vote. Had I not actively worked with the article, I think the end result would have looked very different. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• As it should be Sjakkalle - it is fundamental that any article that is written about a subject must meet this project's basic premises for inclusion. If (as it appears in this instance) the article relating to Ellen Hambro did not meet our fundamentals at the time of it being put forward as an AfD then that is a fair call by the nominator for deletion. If no person came forward to establish that she was in fact notable then at that time the article would have been quite rightly deleted - but again with respect none of that would have been caused by the proposal we are discussing today; and the article could have been restarted easily as soon as someone (with the intention of good research work like your own) decided to pull their finger out and find sources etc.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• This proposal isn't about culling articles that don't meet our "basic premises for inclusion." It's about providing administrators the ability to substitute their own judgment, even if all of our "basic premises for inclusion" are met, in lieu of consensus. user:J aka justen (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• J, thank you for saying, perhaps even more elonquently, exactly what I just said - except that consensus is always relevant.--VirtualSteve^{need admin support?} 11:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and for clarifying exactly what it is that many of us are rejecting. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nomoskedasticity. Letting administrators (actually: the one admininstrator who gets to the AFD first) substitute their own judgement for that of the community is a recipe for inconsistent decisions, and a great deal of apathy and resentment in the community. People will start believing (correctly) that their opinions don't matter because the closing admin will just close whatever way he or she wishes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(Replying to j above) It isn't about that either. If there is a consensus then a closing admin must follow that consensus. The discussion here is about what actions to take in the event that there is no consensus. Don't you see the difference? If the community cannot decide during a debate then some means of making the decision has to be allowed for. In these cases we must make some kind of arbitrary decision no matter what we do. The proposers argument is that for the limited subset of non-consensus debate + BLP article offers the choice to delete. That is a very limited set of circumstances in which this proposal would be enacted. Kevin (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, the difference is more than apparent and has been noted several times, including some suggestions that this is an attempt by a group of admins who want to force a policy change. Per DGG, the guideline is "notable" not "famous" and whether we think that too low a bar or not, the community has consistently rejected efforts to amend it. So, I don't think what's lost is J's understanding of the issue; I think the only thing lost here is acceptance, by a particular group of admins who want to instead force the community's hand by acting out of policy (by claiming they have the discretion to delete and that this policy only enshrines it). -->David Shankbone 12:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, if an editor wants to make a change to an article and can't gain consensus for it, that change is not made. Deletion policy as it currently stands works exactly the same way: if there isn't consensus to delete, it isn't deleted (and those who do it anyway are simply ignoring policy as it is). It is also becoming clear that there isn't consensus for the change proposed by Lar. (Unless the result here is going to be: "no consensus, default to adopt"...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Aren't there two different cases here? One where there is no dispute over the criteria for BLP deletion (i.e. of relatively unknown, non-public figures) being met, but there is no consensus on making an exception for the specific article, and the other case where the criteria for deletion are disputed. patsw (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Random break 2

• Comment - the BLP problem is real. The status quo and policy is that no consensus defaults to keep, not that admins have discretion (if that wasn't the default, we wouldn't be having this proposal, which has been repeatedly rejected in favor of the status quo). What Lar et al. have done is said, 'We're tired of waiting, we'll do it ourselves by giving admins more power if not in policy, then in practice.' That is exactly what Scott MacDonald/Docglasgow said here when he wrote, "Yes, granted your excellent proposal, to make a 'default to delete' solid policy, failed. But policy is created by doing and not by legislating....It may not be current solid policy - but we are moving in that direction." He just described anarchy. That should concern the community greatly, particularly as other BLP fixes are in the works. WP:FLAGGEDREVS is precisely a prescription for the BLP problem that Jimmy Wales himself has publicly said will happen. That has support from the community, and keeps power with the community. The other is known as "Liberal Semi", which means we liberally semi-protect BLPs. That proposal that Lar is also connected with has more support than this continually rejected idea of giving admins more power (which goes against WP:NOBIGDEAL). -->David Shankbone 15:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Noted just today in PC Week, Flagged Revs will be implemented on English Wikipedia by December. -->David Shankbone 16:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Reply to Comment. Are you saying this is just another case of admins looking at a "no consensus" result and reading it as "enable admins to do whatever they want for any reason or no reason at all" rather than "do nothing"? This has been a problem since my first day here. patsw (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's a case of a particular group of admins with good intentions brazenly overreaching their authority to achieve what they want. There is some admin closure discretion, such as "Were most of the keep/delete votes from Single Purpose Accounts or IPs?" "What were the policy/guideline arguments on each side, and which side made honest, accurate appeals to the sources and policy/guideline?" Yes, admins have that discretion, and if they do not exercise it wisely then there is Deletion Review. It's not a bad system. This proposal seeks to give extra status, weight in discussions and special privileges to admins to fix an issue--maintainability--with a rejected solution, on the eve of the accepted solution's implementation. -->David Shankbone 17:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is a real dickish move (IMHO) to characterize anyone who disagrees with this interpretation as "Bozo the Clown", too. JBsupreme (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Um. I think that was added later by someone trying to criticize the appeal to authority in the Jimbo quote. I don't think anyone was trying to say that disagreement was akin to Bozo the Clown. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That is certainly one way it can be interpreted and should probably just be removed since it borders on an ad hominem attack. JBsupreme (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Incredible as it may sound, for once I and JBsupreme completely agree. --Cyclopia^talk 20:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• As much as I'd rather avoid this, it seems to me that an important focus with BLP articles is maintainability: can we maintain an accurate, neutral article with available reliable sources? That, to me, is really the question people are getting at when they ask about notability -- if you can't find notability, it's because you can't find reliable sources, which begs the question of how you can ever hope to maintain an accurate, neutral article, as is absolutely required by BLP. We must keep our content reliable! In most articles, that's a duty to our readers, but with biographies we have an extra duty to the subject, and it's in everyone's interest to treat those duties with care. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If no one can find notability, the meaningful consensus is delete, and the article is deleted. If there is no consensus, it means that notability is disputed and no reasonable agreement can be found. This means that it is entirely possible that the article is maintainable and reliable. "No consensus" does not mean "consensus on being not notable" or "consensus on being poorly notable", means "no consensus". --Cyclopia^talk 23:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I should probably make more clear that I'm referring to a pretty narrow slice of the concerns that led to this discussion; I'm not sure how I feel about the overall proposal. As I read it, this is more allowing some leeway in edge cases, which will hopefully be small in number, but I could be wrong. Certainly I hope everyone agrees the need for additional care is clear, and to some extent that prescribes a deletionist approach as far as rumors, loosely sourced content, and so on, but where a maintainable article is possible, I generally believe we should try for one. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't agree with the sweeping discretion given to administrators under this wording; I don't think we have good processes in place to ensure that the decisions made with that additional discretion are consistent with each other and with broad community consensus. I would prefer incremental steps, e.g. indicating that the normal 2/3 rule of thumb would be 50% in the case of most BLPs. Taken together with other incremental steps such as flagged revisions, we can see what progress we make. Generally, the proposed change is drastic (from one extreme to the other) and I am suspicious of any such proposal unless it can be shown that incremental steps have been tried and failed. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I also think that too much discretion is given to administrators under this. With reading all of this, I now wonder why anyone would iVote on these since there is such leeway to decide to ignore editors who bother. If an editor(s) come in late should they really have to say what has already been said, or can they just name editor(s) that already made the point they themselves would have made? It seems too easy to throw away editors comments to come to the no consensus. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - it is already part of the deletion policy and the BLP policy. The opposes would need to start a community wide RFC to push their interpretation, because it just doesn't exist now. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ottava, we've been over this before. Pretty much everyone here including the people supporting this change acknowledge it is a change. May I tentatively suggest that when everyone else thinks something except for you, it is just possible, maybe, in some universe, somewhere that you are wrong? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - If consensus about person's notability cannot be established, then article probably does not add any real value to wikipedia anyway, while such articles can damage lives and reputations of real people. Article can be always recreated then notability is properly established.--Staberinde (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The benefits of no consensus defaulting to keep outweigh the costs in my opinion. One thing I particularly oppose is giving admins the "option" to close no consensus discussions as either keep or delete. This just begs for off-wiki admin shopping for contentious XfDs. VegaDark (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, a policy change this extreme isn't warranted. If someone wants their article deleted, then default to delete is a reasonable thing to consider. But it's unreasonable to take something that applies in a very narrow and unusual set of circumstances and apply it to all BLPs. Better handling of these things on a case-by-case basis is the answer; a general policy change will only hurt us. Everyking (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - If this has become common practice it should stop. The original wording - default to delete on marginal cases with no consensus only when the subject has requested deletion - is more appropriate. Otherwise, no consensus BLPs should be kept. The degree of notability will have already been considered by the editors discussing the possible deletion, so if deletion is truly warranted, that should be reflected in an actual consensus to delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - no one's advanced a good reason to do this other than to protect BLP's from vandalism. DGG has a very good response as to why that is a very bad argument. Indeed, David Shankbone has a good reply too. In short, deletion is waay to strong of a measure. We don't burn down houses because of graffiti. We wait a few more months until Dec, then put out the fires when they occur. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose like last time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose If the consensus is not for deletion than such a change would allow admins to act against consensus which elevates their role from simply judging what the community wants to deciding what the community should have wanted. No consensus means that there is no consensus - for anything to change. For the same reason, a no consensus at DRV will not result in a deleted article to be restored for example. I'm all in favor of protecting people's privacy but we already do have the proper measures for doing so - editing and rewriting or G10 deletion where necessary. If a deletion of a problematic BLP article is desirable under our current BLP policy(!), then the better arguments at an AFD will and thus consensus will be deletion. The proposed change would basically allow deletion where consensus and thus by extension policy does not allow it. Also, per DGG. Regards SoWhy 12:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Admins already have permission from ArbCom to use whatever tools they have at their disposal to enforce the BLP policy (the footnotes ruling that is being ignored). Sadly that isn't happening and I applaud Lar for taking this initiative to codify what ought to be happening already but sadly isn't. It's time we grow up and realize that consensus on a website is not a substitute for human decency and taking responsibility for the content on this website. We've been over this for how many years now yet nothing of significance has happened. This needs to end. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as a clear matter of principle. Reliably sourced material should never default to delete. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support. Even after reading the opposes, i can't understand their rationales. It we can't decide whether they should have an article, and the article is troubled by defamation issues and the like, why the heck would we keep it? It's a shame that this discussion doesn't look like it'll reach a verdict, because this is sorely, sorely needed. Wizardman 02:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

1)The articles we're talking about are not already "troubled by defamation issues": the proposal -as far as I understand that- would be applied to any non-consensual BLP, even if not troublesome at all. 2)If there are defamation/vandalism issues, these can be solved with methods that do not destroy the article, like semiprotection, protection and -in the future- flagged revisions. 3)For these reasons, the article can be kept: if there is no consensus the only neutral course of action is maintaining the status quo and if there are problems, we already have the means to deal with them at large. I hope this helps understanding our (well,at least my) rationale. --Cyclopia^talk 02:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand better what you're saying. My oppose stands though, I still think deletion's the better alternative to messing around with other tools. Wizardman 02:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

But what about cases where we would be deleting things that don't require other tools? If the article has had no trouble, I don't see why we should be deleting it if it otherwise meets our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support per Gazimof and others. BLPs are very sensitive material and should not automatically be kept in cases of concern. Reywas92^Talk 00:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support: WP:BLP clearly indicates that a higher standard, in terms of sourcing, applies to BLPs. Giving the closing admin wider discretion on such articles, to close 'no consensus' as delete can therefore clearly be seen as warranted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It's called "Article for Deletion", not "Article for Keep". So if there is no consensus to delete, the article shouldn't be deleted. This totally feels like a if-we-cannot-find-enough-people-in-favor-of-deletion-we-delete-it-anyway. I rarely vote on proposals, but this proposal is definitely one of the most bizarre ones I've seen in a while. Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 10:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I have to echo the "BLPs are very sensitive" argument. While it can be fine to default to keep for things which do not or cannot live, we have to also recognise that we are playing with peoples' lives here. Wikipedia could quite easily ruin the reputation of a barely notable person. We have an ethical commitment to stop that, and switching the default AfD result to delete for BLPs will help somewhat. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This policy will lead to the unnecessary removal of valuable encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support with caveat - I would say that "marginally notable" BLPs who are not public figures should be deleted, but "marginally notable" BLPs who are public figures should stand. The whole reason for special care for BLPs is to avoid libel and defamation, which isn't a concern for marginally notable BLPs who are public figures.--Blargh29 (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support - There is no reason to not have what we commonly do, in policy. It's a major rule when dealing with BLPs that they be gotten right, and therefore it's just as important when dealing with BLP AFDs that they too be gotten right. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

1)Is it what is "commonly done"? There have been some attempts to find evidence of this statement but it seems it is practiced, seldomly, only by very few admins. 2)Even if it is what it is commonly done, it does not follow logically that it has to be policy. Actions like sockpuppetry are incredibly common, but are not going to become policy, for obvious reasons 3)The BLP being "right" has usually little to do with its reasons for deletion. Articles are not deleted because they are "not completely right", but for reasons, mostly, of notability. No consensus on notability does not imply that the article is "not right", implies only that there is a splitting debate on the sources. --Cyclopia^talk 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Admins already have licence enough to deal with truly problematic articles. This won't get used for articles that are truly problematic; rather, it will be used simply for articles that particular groups want to suppress. That should be resisted. Jheald (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: If we are going to delete all the articles which may be vandalized we might as well pack up and go home. Requests for protection is there for a reason, use it if necessary. No consensus seems to be a ridiculously easy conclusion to reach, more so for closing editors not having to justify their rationale further than saying 'each side had good reasons, and bad reasons'. Unomi (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose: Why in the world do we need to default to delete in the absence of a clear and present BLP issue? It's already a pain in the arse trying to keep the deletionist scalpels off of niche-notable articles (not-paper, global scope, etc.) without it defaulting to them. - BalthCat (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment if WP is going to have biographies of living people, then we should have some minimum content requirements for them lacking which they get deleted as more harm than help. Chopping them to minimize anything interesting as suggested below as an alternative is worse than nothing - WP is not a place where we enshrine the minor celebrities of our time with a one-liner that they exist. What we have is a problem caused by an excessive leniency on permitting articles on barely-known individuals of today: college prof's, minor-league sportspeople, local radio and tv personalities, anyone who has ever been on some sitcom or another, mayors and councilmembers of smaller towns, people who'd never be in a 100-volume paper encyclopedia 200 years from now - if 200 years from now, no one really cares about these people - as today we really don't care who was mayor of some small town 200 years ago or who wrote a column in some newspaper 200 years ago, or who played for what team, sailed on what ship, etc. - why have articles about them in the first place? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Response I don't accept the premise of your argument. While me might want to consider what would be in a 10,000 volume encyclopedia 10 years from now, or even better 200 years ago, that would ask us to consider the same with continuing expansion to your 200 years from now mark. I don't accept the idea that if a paper encyclopedia was freed of the restrictions imposed by format, their editorial policies would ever involve the removal of an article from one edition to the next. We are striving to be what an ecyclopedia (and almanac and gazeteer) would be if it had no physical restrictions whatsoever. We don't have the restrictions of printing, shipping, storing, and replacement that necessitate those kind of editorial policies for a traditional encyclopedia. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • In a word: WP:NOTPAPER. --Cyclopia^talk 16:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. BLP articles have enough protection as it is, and there seems to be an element of WP:AAJ here. Modest Genius ^talk 21:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support: The issue here as I understand it is how we deal with BLP articles that find their way to AfD, and yet achieve no consensus. In that respect, I strongly support a "default to deletion" policy in these matters. WP is a global top-10 site, and the articles here should reflect a degree of responsibility to our readership. If a BLP has reached AfD, then it's for a reason; be it notability concerns, sourcing issues, poor POV items, or many other reasons. Since BLP articles reflect upon, and have an impact on real live people out there in the real world - then it is better to have nothing, then to have something that can effect decisions to real lives. This goes both ways, "fluff" pieces that are promotional in nature are just as influential as those that are negative in their position. WP is not here to establish a breeding ground for either positive or negative persuasion, it is here to document only; and in a NPOV fashion. Regardless of what one might feel about a singular BLP article, our position should be this: until an article can be presented in a factual, NPOV fashion - it should not be party to providing marginal opinions about real life individuals. We have over 50,000 BLP articles which don't even cite a single resource to verify the content of said article - that is not the type of goals we should be working towards. We allow users their user space to work on articles, we have an Incubation project which does not index to search engines, and we have the ability as a community to do "the right thing" in regards to how we treat real live people. If we can't find a consensus to "keep" a BLP article, .. then it simply should not be in our mainspace. — Ched :  ?  12:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Random break 3

• Oppose, consensus should come from the strength of the arguments on both sides, and from the discussion between editors weighing up the options. If there is no consensus, relist and gain consensus. There are pleanty of venues available at Wikipedia to facilitate discussions. Forgive me if I misunderstand the full weight of this issue, but as far as I see it no consensus means that we should attempt to gain consensus, then choose an action. Defaulting to delete isn't really "No consensus", because the action is taken. Defaulting to keep works because there is nothing stopping a relist/renom providing more discussion. --Taelus (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, if the reason to delete is good it will be deleted by consensus anyway. SunCreator (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)