Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey St. Clair
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was KEEP effectively withdrawn by nom, all deletion reasons now answered by sourcing. -Docg 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This biography of a living person remains completely unsourced ten months after its first tagging. A proposed deletion tag was removed yesterday. I submit it here so that it may either be cleaned up or deleted. If it is kept unsourced, I suggest that we set a reasonable timescale during which the article should be supplied with reliable sources. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless given basic sources within 2 weeks -Docg 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all unsourced WP:BLP articles. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 10 months is more than enough for an article to be sourced. (It also reads like a "who's who" entry to me rather than an encyclopedia article; I suspect this article will never be sourced and that the subject is on the fringes of notability). I agree with Guy that we should delete all unsourced articles on living people. --kingboyk 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Struck --kingboyk 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. I added some sources. His book has been reviewed by the New York Times (added), he has written for Harper's Magazine [1], the Organic Consumers Association [2], and of course, a slew of left-wing magazines and sites (not added, he's pretty prolific, no reason to pick any specific articles) ... notable. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep [3] and some of the other links gives the basic facts: what books he's written and so on. All the personal stuff is unsourced though.--Sus scrofa 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I sourced most of "the personal stuff" to his articles. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then where's the beef?--Sus scrofa 20:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I sourced most of "the personal stuff" to his articles. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as cleaned up by our favorite rodent. It should be observed that, whilst it has been proposed at WT:BLP (here, inter al.) that unsourced biographies of living persons be deleted absent a compelling keep justification, it is far from clear that such proposal will command the consensus of the community, especially because similar proposals (directed, I concede, broadly, viz., at articles irrespective of topic) were emphatically (and properly, IMHO) rejected; because, even as policy is generally descriptive rather than prescriptive, it is well settled that that it is inappropriate that policy be made at an insular AfD, even one mentioned prominently at WP:AN and WT:BLP, the objections of Tony, Doc, and Guy would not, even were the article still unsourced, have been dispositive here. Joe 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think AnonEMouse has done a good job. I have no problems with this article now. Unsourced biographical articles should of course be deleted if an honest attempt to source them fails (and that's irrespective of what any "vote" masquerading as consensus says--it follows from the Verifiability policy). However in this instance the attempt has been triumphant. Thank you, that Masked Mouse. --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 26 April 2007 (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.