Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Deckert

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed as moot. No one at all is arguing the subject isn't encyclopedic. UncleG is now writing a sourced BLP compliant version - this afd was always pointless.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Günter Deckert

I restored this after speedy deleting it and then reviewing revision history. The current version was considered a negative unsourced WP:BLP violation and gutted. What was left did not assert notability, so on reflection, I restored this version. In this version, the subject appears very notable, but not particularly admirable by my standards. (I don't want my negative bias to cloud my judgment.) I'm not confident that this article is utterly beyond redemption, and would prefer consensus seeking here to unilateral action on my part. Dloh cierekim 15:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - I seen the speedy-nom for this but having made an opinion on the AN discussion I thought it best if someone else handled it. Just commenting to bring participants' attention to the AN discussion and to the lede of WP:BLP; "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 15:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was thundering in my head. The problem, as I see it, is that it could be rewritten or sourced. At least toned down. Maybe, I'll take a crack at it. The thing came over from the German Wikipedia. I did not look there at the sourcing. As so often happens, real life gets in the way of my article woek. Cheers, Dloh cierekim

<after ec with below, which I have not read>Also, I think most of what was blanked is not so negative as to warrant removal. BLP does not mean we not tell the truth about people or only tell the good parts. Dloh cierekim 15:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - How negative it is, or how truthful isn't the point. The point is sourcing. We don't include negative material unless well-sourced.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a debate here is irrelevant as this has nothing to do with notability. The correct response here is to speedy delete the article as a G10, it can then be undeleted immediately anyone offers to make it BLP compliant. However, eventualism is not acceptable here. The question is not "is the article salvageable?", the question is "will someone make it BLP compliant now?" If not, we must remove the article for now. So, I guess I'm saying "speedy delete, without prejudice to recreation or undeletion" unless someone is immediately offering to fix it. Certainly nothing for afd to debate here.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as much as I could. Please look at current version. I'm outta time. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reverted my changes. The whole point of deletion was removing the the blp. Dloh cierekim 15:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reverted you. Your version was still a wholly unsourced BLP.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view Scott MacDonald is acting in a disruptive fashion by deleting the bulk of the article, leaving what is clearly non-notable. I am aware of BLP policies, however:

1. Sometimes we need to see what it is we are supposed to be discussing.

2. There may be adequate sources on the German language Wikipedia article, as I do not speak German this needs to be investigated.

3. There may be a case for saying speedy delete without prejudice to re-creation, but this needs to be taken by an admin. PatGallacher (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Em. BLP does not say "leave unsourced negative material if there 1) "may be adequate sources on another wiki" or 2) "It is convenient to save editors looking in the history" or 3) because only admins can make the call."--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with the above) We have a whole host of negative and currently unsourced material. I find it astonishing that you think this should remain. The whole purpose of WP:LIVING is to deal with this kind of page. I fully agree with Scott MacDonald's removal of the negative content. We don't say "wait and see if there are sources available" when we have a page like this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is clear from doing a basic search that there is a large amount of material about this person on the internet, I have already added 4 links myself. PatGallacher (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt you are correct. And if someone wants to write a properly sourced article, then I will probably vote to keep too. But right now, there is no BLP compliant material to keep.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.