Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe

Tag the articles?

Should these articles be tagged with {{afd}}? I don't want there to be a Deletion review because of a seeming technicality. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone with AWB access could probably tag these, but I think this is an appropriate occasion to ignore all rules. The creator has already been informed of the AfD and the articles haven't had much time to be integrated into Wikipedia or have dedicated editors watch them. This has also been well publicized with its appearance at ANI and it has already recieved more discussion than most AfDs. ThemFromSpace 08:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess the deletion review will happen anyway with a deletion of this size. It takes only a single editor who wants to see the drama. Tagging 3000 articles that nobody is watching or looking at, immediately before deletion, is just a waste of resources. Hans Adler 08:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see Blofeld or somebody appealling, but really with something this snowballish such a review isn't going to proceed on a minor technicality. Ironholds (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld has voted to delete. I think a DRV initiated by a delete-voter could be closed. Regardless, this has gotten a lot of attention, and I believe this will be a good starting point for Blofeld to get a project started to transwiki articles, which will benefit the project when done carefully and at a manageable pace. Hopefully some participants in this drama will be interested in helping with such a project. Lara 16:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bulk WP:CSD#G7 per author request?

Per this, with the exception of the handful that have been improved by Dr Blofeld and others, surely the rest now qualify under G7 and this AFD can be closed? Pedro :  Chat  15:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarify - now Lara has made a very good point at ANI. Any that have been improved would need to be removed from the master list so that a batch delete can be performed. Pedro :  Chat  15:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the two I edited anyway. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Block? No.

The creator of these articles should be blocked indefinately - its clear that this mass creation of articles is just a stunt to attract attention. Childish pranks like this may be forgiven on a smaller scale, but on a large scale is hard to defend that this act of vandalism is not a premeditated attempt to disrupt Wikipedia on a grand scale. And you all claim that you adhere to Wikipedia:AGF? You clearly know absolutely NOTHING about Albert or myself , go and take a running jump. That is the most ignorant, incorrect statement I've ever heard from anybody on here and I've heard some bad things in my time on here. You honestly think this is a childish prank? You're the one who needs to blocked indefinately just for being so warped and so moronic. What a cretin. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't like the way this is being spun. I support these deletions in the context of our BLP policy but these diffs by FloNight leave me concerned about what is going on. If this is some sort of first stage in an attempt to delete all articles that are considered "stale" and if this is an attempt to wage war on stubs of old movies and geographic places despite consensus in the past to accept these then I'm withdrawing from this debate because I don't want to be involved in such activities. If you expect all articles to be edited reguarly then you may as well nominate half the encyclopedia for deletion. I thought this was about creation of unsourced BLPs, not stubs in general. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed if that were true than 85% of the encyclopedia would be nuked because "they are no good enough articles or don't have enough references". Certianly make sone think twice about borthering to try to edit this site anway. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Nope. I'm not a radical deletionist. No worries. My point is that we need to work hard to stop people from starting poorly sourced articles. We need to talk about quality to make it happen. We agree that quality is important, right? FloNight♥♥♥ 15:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • (EC) Oh absolutely. I was just worried that this was the first step in the entirely wrong direction. I'll support any initiative aimed directly at improving quality and, as I hope I've managed to make clear here, I support the default to delete approach when it comes to unsourced or marginally notable BLPs. I am, however, concerned that this is turning into a debate about stubs in general and stale articles. An article about a movie from 1911 does not need regular editing. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved this from the AFD. It's an absurd proposal to block the creator. This was all done in good faith and saw a quick promise to stop. No reason whatsoever to block. Seriously. He's also been polite and communicative. Lara 16:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Absoolutely endorse your action Lara. Pedro :  Chat  19:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind that you moved it here but my conversation with FloNight was about the overall tone and nature of some of the comments here. I wasn't aware of the absurd block proposal when I posted here. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sad

How sad that the Wikipedia community has degenerated to the point where expanding the encyclopedia is seen as a problem. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

How great that finally people are waking up to the BLP problem and taking measures to protect living subjects. Lara 14:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a handful of edits in the mainspace in the last month, I don't exactly see a great big effort by you to maintain BLPs or see much evidence of you working through existing articles, not to the extent you let on anyway. I had envisaged that you had this huge workload and were frantically going through existing articles just to maintian them. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My main focus is BLP. I've been busier than usual the past few weeks, so I haven't had a great deal of time to spend on-wiki. Furthermore, after creating WikiProject Living people, categorizing several hundred BLPs, going through lists of hundreds of BLPs to check for BLP violations, and responding to BLP-related OTRS tickets, there's a bit of burn out that requires a step back. Regardless of your perception of my work, I am one of the loudest voices on the BLP front; and regardless of the number of BLPs in my last month of live contribs, it doesn't make my point any less valid. Try checking my admin contribs, they're full of hundreds of recent BLP edits. Lara 20:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe you, you obviously feel strongly about it otherwise you wouldn't have done anything and it wouldn't be mentioned on your talk page. I had though expected to see more mainspace edits in your recent contribs anyway but if you have hundreds of recent BLP edits under admin contribs, that explains it. Thanks for clearing it up. It wasn't a perception of your work, I know that you are one of the loudest voices on this issue and several other issues and have done some good work in the past as I said I was just expecting to see the edits in the main contribs thats all. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that there is a big BLP problem, I just don't think having as few articles as possible is the solution. The only complete solution to the BLP problem is to shut down Wikipedia, but I don't think you advocate that. I believe that avoiding articles on living people until the BLP problem is solved too draconian. I also don't think an unreferenced BLP is a problem by itself, only if anything in it is contentious or false. Having an article about a person might attract libelous vandalism, but I don't think the risk is so big that we should not have the article. Many people on WP don't care much about BLP issues, because you don't often encounter it as an ordinary editor. I think you, who work almost exclusively with BLP problems, overestimate how common it is. My comment above wasn't just aimed at you. Many of the influtential people on Wikipedia have spent so much time preventing problems on Wikipedia that they only care about preventing problems. With that thinking they end up moving slowly towards shutting down Wikipedia. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to shutdown Wikipedia. But I would fully support a prohibition on new BLPs until we got the existing ones cleaned up, as it's all very overwhelming at the moment. That will never happen, of course, but I would at least like a standard that unreferenced BLPs get deleted. Like I'd like to strengthen the standards at AFD to default all no consensus BLP AFDs to delete, which is becoming a standard, after many months of pushing. And, to clarify just slightly, while there is a bit of "preventing problems" wrt my work, a lot of it has to do with fixing the existing problem, which is huge. Lara 21:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That is where we disagree: I think being able to look up who people are quickly is positive enough to compensate for the rather small risk that the article gets vandalized. I still don't see why it is a problem by itself that a BLP is unreferenced. I don't know if you are interested in my opinions, but I would support flagged revisions on all BLPs and a slightly higher notability threshold for BLPs. What I meant at the end is that spending too much time preventing for fixing problems on Wikipedia, makes you over-value measures to prevent and fix problems at the expense of improving the encyclopedia. It is similar to how police officers will often advocate stricter laws, tougher punishment and less rights of ordinary citizens. To take an example on Wikipedia there is the spam blacklist where the people who run it are so concerned about fighting spam that they don't realize when the false positives cause more trouble than it's worth. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

On a blog, only articles about living people would need references (because of legal concerns). But this is an encyclopedia so all articles should be supported by reliable sources, ideally from the very first edit outside user space ("find the references, then write the content"). This was one of the key objections to the specific way the recent import of German politicians was done. Hopefully a solution will be found that will satisfy both perspectives (I mean Lara's and AH/Blofeld's). Perhaps the debate frothed over briefly—it did feel like an emergency—but now we all want to find common ground without further drama. I hope you can join in on this basis. - Pointillist (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC).

All articles should have references, but an article without references is still better than no article. Referencing is very important, but it is not the solution to every problem as some seem to think. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should debate that somewhere else <g> but anyway it all changes when you add automation. The ratio of active editors to content seems to be falling, and expectations have risen, so creating large numbers of stubs automatically is a sensitive issue. In this case there was confusion over which articles were really about policitians (see here) and a concern that articles from other countries (beyond Germany) were about to come gushing through the fire hose. As this was something easily reversible (like search-and-replace), naturally we wanted to fix the problem while it was still containable and then find a better approach. Please let's put the drama behind us now. - Pointillist (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is a big problem undoubtedly evne in referenced articles. Especially when it is done subtlely. I've lost count of how many times I've been reading article and come across something added to the rest of the accurate text like "he worked in Burger King after graduating" (in reference to a rather overweight biography) . Then you look at the history and it is nearly always an annoying ip or red linked new account holder messing with the articles. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the real solution would be flagged revisions on BLPs. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That was a careless mass deletion. I'm starting the Gisela Elsner and would have benefitted from what was done by Dr. Blofeld. Such deletion was either an abuse or we need AFD rules that are much stricter when the article involved is more than one.--Sum (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This thread is almost 2 years old.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So? This is a negative precedent, which could be an example for future disruptions.--Sum (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I mean that only people who never bother to clean their watchlist like me will see what you wrote. If you want people to hear what you have to say you should choose a more public forum than a 2 year old archived AFD.--Cube lurker (talk)