This time it took me an hour to get an article with {{wikify}} on it down
to a one-sentence stub.
It turns out that the colleagues of a recently deceased man wanted to
honor him with a Wikipedia entry and started contributing first-hand
accounts about the person to the article. Once I had moved those to the
talk page and removed possible copyright violations from the article there
was essentially nothing left.
Entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Stambaugh
Exhortations to contribute to the entry:
http://www.ihrim.org/bobstambaugh.asp
"... asking everyone who knew Bob to collect their notes/facts/events and
enter them into this online encylopedia."
http://dealarchitect.typepad.com/deal_architect/2005/12/robert_h_stamba
"I know there have been criticisms about Wikipedia and some of its entries
but Bob would be pleased his peers are honoring him with a well thought
out entry cataloging his extensive contributions to the HR discipline."
One of the main arguments in favor of deletionism is that we don't have
the manpower to maintain articles on all those marginally notable
subjects. The number of articles with cleanup tags on them seems to bear
this out.
I disagree with the idea that deciding to keep an article is always
harmless. Having tens of thousands of biography articles sprawling around
with few experienced Wikipedians checking them is *dangerous*. It is much
*less* dangerous to delete articles which we may not be able to maintain
in a neutral informative state.
Every time you comment in AfD, ask yourself the question: "Will we be able
to maintain this article?" It is not a question to be answered lightly and
demonizing those who frequently answer it with "no, I don't think we will"
is not productive.
I want to see the people who talk like they're living under some sort of
deletionist reign of terror, down in the trenches cleaning copyvios, libel
and dangerous misinformation out of marginal articles. Prove that we
really can maintain all the articles which you want to keep.
Regards,
Haukur