Hi. As you removed the PROD, you may want to comment at the AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for letting me know. RMHED (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work being done with the csd's, but some of the ones do indeed meet CSD Criteria. Most fail WP:V and some fail WP:N, of course these can be saved just add hangon and wee will see how it goes from there. Regards -Marcusmax(speak) 01:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Any editor excepting the article's creator can remove a CSD tag, once removed an alternate form of deletion (Prod or AfD) can be sought if you so wish. RMHED (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• So sorry once again, I keep getting in edit conflicts with other users on your talk, but I hus wanted to apologise for reverting I had no idea the csd tags were for nocontext. Go ahead and revert my edits, while I go get some coffee to wake me up. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, they were also for fictional characters which can't be speedied. RMHED (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to give you the smile award, but every time I try to I get in a edit conflict, but once again thanks its nice to have another rollbacker WP:AGF, anyways thx again. oh and do you by any chance have the link to info about fictional characters so I can read up on the policy. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you mean fictional characters as regards speedy deletion then there is no specific policy, it's just that fictional characters don't come under any CSD criteria except if copyvios. The CSD criteria are very narrowly defined. RMHED (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah I see, the fictional characters are kind of outstanding, and have no real csd policy governing them. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They could also be deleted as no content or no context if appropriate, but other than those limited options then no they can't be speedied. The same goes for schools, albums, books and software. If it doesn't obviously fit in a CSD criteria best to either Prod it or send it to AfD instead. RMHED (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This makes sense, thanks much. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you don't feel that this article is a candidate for speedy deletion. It seems to be a pretty clear case of blatant advertising. Mishlai (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not blatant advertising, slightly promo in tone yes. RMHED (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the tone is promotional, it's not the tone that I think makes it blatant advertising. The article exists only to promote the Nuclear Waste News website. A quick google of "Nuclear Waste News" doesn't reveal any other websites mentioning or linking to it, so it's hard to imagine how the article could possibly be expanded beyond self-reference in any verifiable way.

Blatant Advertising is defined in the CSD policy as Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. I've marked it for a regular deletion. Mishlai (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have different opinions on what is blatant advertising. Anyway I'll leave the Prod alone as it seems entirely reasonable. RMHED (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick review of the author's contributions shows that he/she has only created newsletter articles promoting websites from the same publisher. I've marked those others as CSD as well. Mishlai (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Capitol Press publications, my what a coincidence. RMHED (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciate the fact that you took the time to evaluate my contributions, and provide me with important feedback. Furthermore, I really appreciate that you were willing to re-evaluate, and abstain. Even though my RfA was successful, I intend to take your advice and do some significant article work as well. All the best, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for most of these you should probably go straight to AFD, as it's all but certain that the tags will be removed. Besides that, per WP:PROD the proposed deletion is "way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate..." Do you honestly believe that these are likely to be uncontroversial? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Any totally unsourced BLP should be deleted on sight IMO, at least a Prod gives interested parties a chance to add sources. For too long the BLP problems have been ignored, time to deal with them. RMHED (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with you in spirit, but in practice I don't find your approach useful, because I believe that it incorrectly presumes that sourced BLPs are less likely to be problematic than unsourced ones (and also because, as I said, these are all going to be de-PRODed and you'll have spent a lot of time accomplishing next to nothing). In my experience, this is not so - the likelihood of a BLP hurting the subject is independent of the question of whether or not it's sourced. Besides that, your response to my question - "at least a Prod gives interested parties a chance to add sources" - does nothing to distinguish it from the alternative I proposed, that being AFD. You and I both know that these aren't speedy candidates, so it's either Prod or AFD, and I think AFD is by far the preferable of the two. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the Prods will be removed, unless you intend to remove them to make a point? I could send them all to AfD but no doubt that mass influx would be criticized too. RMHED (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I predict they'll be removed because almost all of the people you prodded are notable per the assorted subject-specific notability guidelines (I realize notability isn't your argument; I'm just explaining why people will remove them). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How right you were see WP:AN/I#Prod reverts, maybe AfD is the way to go, then those that care enough about the articles will maybe add a ref or two. RMHED (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed a crucial point re: BLP.

It's that any negative statements in a BLP article must be sourced or will be removed immediately.

You're mass-tagging valid articles on spurious grounds. DS (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Any unsourced content of a BLP is by nature contentious. A BLP without a single source or external link is wholly unacceptable. RMHED (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RMHED here on the interpretation of WP:BLP - everything needs to be sourced, and anybody can remove unsourced material at any time. But I think he's completely misguided on what the source of the BLP problem is: the problem isn't that there aren't enough footnotes in BLPs: the problem is that anybody with an axe to grind or a sick sense of humour can come along and write anything they want in a BLP, and in a great many BLPs this will remain unnoticed long enough to get cached by Google and scraped by mirrors. Citations are important and valuable in cleaning up BLPs, but they don't really have anything to do with the root of the problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On that I agree, in my opinion all BLP's should be permanently semi-protected to help limit this problem. RMHED (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As do I - I proposed as much once at WT:BLP. It didn't go especially well. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course someone could probably bring it about if they so wished, but I won't hold my breath. Maybe he's hoping flagged revisions will do the trick, though by itself I doubt it. RMHED (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually sure that he could, actually, though it does seem to be an academic question at the moment. As for flagged revisions, I think they'd help a lot. They haven't yet been implemented, though, because the devs are waiting for a consensus from a community that's incapable of forming consensus. As a wise man once said, "Whee!". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimmy is very careful about what Godking actions he takes, he knows only too well that if he pushes his authority too hard it could well be challenged by a strong opposing faction and who knows what might result from such an internecine dispute. So for this reason I understand his caution, but he could still do more, in conjunction with the Wikimedia Board, to bring it about. Maybe his caution is indicative of a loss of vision or a waning of his authority. On the other hand he might not give a fuck about this problem, except for the libel implications of course, who knows.
  Yes you're right about the problem of major change it seldom happens on Wikipedia anymore, the rut grows ever deeper. All we get now is tinkering around the edges and even that requires almost limitless discussion. RMHED (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove your comment. Please don't falsely accuse me of things again. Otto4711 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See the bottom of this diff [1], I'll assume good faith and that it was an error. RMHED (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a courtesy notice. While reviewing an unrelated issue I noticed that you have been blanking a number of pages on WP:BLP grounds. That seems unwarranted and potentially disruptive so I've brought the matter up for discussion here: WP:AN#RMHED blanking pages under claim of BLP. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Hard-hats are needed for BLP enforcement. Keep it up. Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for goodness sakes. Please don't encourage disruption by giving it a barnstar.Wikidemon (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, uoi don't get it. Despite the explanations on ANI. This isn't disruption it is sterling work, which tends to bring the people who are bold enough to do it into precisely the type of flack you are giving him. What's disruptive is the criticism which doesn't accept or understand the basics of BLP.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is highly disruptive. A good-faith discussion is going on at WP:AN. I understand BLP just fine. You are using barnstars as a tool for arguing a disputed point, and using this other editor's talk page as a place to be uncivil to another editor. Please stop.Wikidemon (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be uncivil, and the discussion on ANI is fine. But I don't want your (good faith) annoyance at what RMHED did to discourage him from keeping up his invaluable work on BLP. That's why I gave the barnstar. It isn't aimed at criticing you, but encouraging him to continue.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a read through of the AN thread, quite entertaining really. Still must carry on regardless, there are so many unsourced or poorly sourced BLP's out there and so little time. RMHED (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful in the future, and do not disrupt the project to make a WP:POINT. If you wish to contribute constructively, please remove only material that is truly contentious or unsourced, and try to do a reality check on what you are removing. Thanks Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article, and then had doubts. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it's all been taken care of and sourced, so a good outcome. RMHED (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created some stubs today for missing Penthouse Pets, which I see you have prodded. WP:PORNBIO and long-standing consensus both suggest that simply having been a Penthouse Pet (or Playboy Playmate) is sufficient to meet the threshold of notability. Are you intending to delete all articles on Penthouse Pets, just the ones I've created, or just a random selection? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I just don't see how an in-house award like Penthouse Pet means instant notability, that combined with the lack of coverage in reliable third party sources indicates to me that the articles should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that, but you're arguing against the existing consensus. You are welcome to start a discussion about changing WP:PORNBIO. It's not really my thing, so I have no idea if you would be successful or not. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop blanking the article. Either nominate for speedy deletion or wait until the RfD is complete, blanking serves no purpose and will be considered vandalism should you continue. Thanks. Rockpocket 21:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blanking was mistaken judgement. But it was good faith, with given reasons, and isn't vandalism. Rockpocket's machine rollback was poor, and his accusation of vandalism extreme assumtion of bad faith. Stop it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article as it stands is a violation of the BLP policy so blanking is appropriate. The content is a prime example of WP:BLP1E and is virtually all negative in tone, this just isn't acceptable. No responsible encyclopedia would have an article on this person, it is at most a fleeting news story. To leave it in situ as is, would be the height of irresponsibility. RMHED (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a BLP hawk, however, negative material if neutral and referenced does not violate BLP. BLP1E is not a speedy deletion or removal criterion.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If all there is, is negative content then yes it does. After all we're not talking about some serial killer here but a young woman who obviously made a bad decision. That one wrong choice should not warrant a Wikipedia article, the news media may well fixate on it, but they don't claim to be an encyclopedia. RMHED (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: she does not warrant an article, and I am confident she will not have one once the community have their say through the appropriate mechanisms. However, blanking a sourced article while it is undergoing a deletion discussion is not an appropriate mechanism of removing an article. Rockpocket 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If the article violates BLP, as I believe this does, then blanking is appropriate. You have more faith in 'The Community' than I do. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this kept, the community has far too many dumbfucks in it to be confident that common sense and decency will prevail. RMHED (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a BLP issue that can be dealt with by blanking the page. Each statement by itself was sourced and accurate, which precludes them from blanking as a solution. Its the fact that together they amount to little more than the documentation of a single poor decision by an unfortunate member of the public that is the problem. The only way that is going to be dealt with is by administrator deletion. And they only way you are going to get that is through one of the deletion mechanisms. Article blanking is not a solution that will last more than a few minutes and it will only ever lead to misunderstandings of intent (like I did, and I apologise for that).

I do have a little more faith in the community that you, since any admin with even a cursory understanding of WP:NOT will close that discussion by deleting the article. But even if you are right, the same community of dumbfucks will not permit you to continue to blank articles that are being discussed for deletion. Rockpocket 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact a statement is sourced is not pertinent, if the BLP as a whole is mostly negative then a G10 speedy deletion is appropriate. It's about time Wikipedia recognized its responsibility in this regard and stopped making excuses. RMHED (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion may be in some people's view appropriate. However, by no stretch of the imagination does G10 allow the speedy deletion of sourced bios on the grounds that they are negative. We've got plenty of high-profile BLPs on people who are largely notorious for negative reasons.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly serious criminals I'd guess, not young women who made one poor decision. This is a news story not a legitimate biography, its content is mostly negative and not remotely appropriate for a legitimate encyclopedia. So delete with extreme prejudice, in order to protect Wikipedia's rapidly diminishing reputation. RMHED (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But that's a judgement call, and we need to discuss it. There is no speedy deletion criterion for articles like this.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the merits of both arguments, but why didn't you make a G10 speedy deletion request then, RMHED? As I noted, that too is a valid mechanism of dealing with the perceived problem. Blanking a page does not really delete anything, and will simply lead to someone reverting to the previous version. We have the same aims here, I expect, but only way forward is going to have any sort of permanency, and that is through one of the deletion mechanisms. Rockpocket 00:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Orderinchaos did G10 delete it, [2] but it was restored by another admin, Fuzheado, the article's creator. RMHED (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered (several weeks after the fact) that you stopped an overzealous editor from trying to delete the stub for Marselli Sumarno, which I created earlier this month. That other editor never informed me that this article was marked for Speedy Delete or that he later put a prod on it -- you removed both of those inappropriate tags, and I greatly appreciate your work. Thank you!!! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome Eco. RMHED (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RMHED! Thank you very much for your support and comments in the RfA. It passed today, and your comments were much appreciated :) I am glad that at least one user values mainspace edits and put it as a reason to support, which would be my first reason to support an editor who contributes heavily to the mainspace (actual article building). Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that nominated a dozen or so winnipeg politicians, all of them having undoubtable qualification for notability such as being on the provincial legislature, or mayor of the city, rather than trying to add what must be really obvious sources, is constructive. he criterion for deletion is unsourceable, not unsourced. DGG (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And I do not think that any unsourced BLP should be allowed to remain that way, either it should be adequately sourced or deleted. I'm not going to spend my time sourcing BLP articles about people I'm not remotely interested in. If you or others wish to do so then all well and good. In the meantime I'll continue to nominate any unsourced BLP's. RMHED (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to but in on someone else's talk page, but RMHED was quite right to nominate some these people. Local councillors and city mayors are not automatically notable - there are thousands upon thousands of local councillors across the world - they are not all notable. And the Winipeg City Council is no exception.--UpDown (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you posted a whole list of biographies on AFD. I would like to point out that only unsourced negative comments warrant immediate deletion under WP:BLP guidelines/policy. Since AFD is not cleanup, I think it is a better course of action to first offer them to some sort of cleanup taskforce within a wikiproject to try and source them before you go through with the deletion nominations. That way sources are found where possible without using AFD for something it isn't supposed to do. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No any contentious content [3] that is unsourced should be removed, this could be either negative or positive as the quote from Jimmy Wales makes clear near the top of the BLP page. RMHED (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I don't think we have conclusive information yet on how these AfDs are doing, but I think it would be a good idea to see how this "first batch" of AfD nominations does before you continue nominating more articles. Based on those results, it might be easier to determine what articles are more likely to get consensus for deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes generally a consensus is required to keep or delete at AfD. If the articles are kept fair enough, but they still must conform to BLP policy and any unsourced contentious content should be removed. RMHED (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if you know of this yet but you have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_of_AFD. Icewedge (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh joy. RMHED (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Aaron Brown (wide receiver). Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. --Allen3 ^talk 23:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• BLP's without sources are harmful to Wikipedia as they have a tendency to confuse readers and cause potential harm to the article's subject. If you feel the article content was appropriate please do add sources to it in order to verify its claims. RMHED (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP specifies the removal of CONTENTIOUS material. Blanking an anodyne article like that is not per policy. If you are concerned the article lacks sources, either find them or tag the article with the appropriate templates. Feel free to remove contentious material, but do not blank entire uncontroversial articles. Do so again and you will be blocked. fish&karate 00:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most unsourced BLP content is contentious, I sugest you re-read WP:BLP and familiarize yourself with policy. RMHED (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A 24-hour block it is. fish&karate 00:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult a dictionary for a definition of 'contentious'. I do not think it means what you think it means. DS (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]