User:Jreferee/Removal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Summary
A low importance/fame compared to a great demonstrated distress would allow the article to be removed under this process, even though the article would/did survive AfD.
Article for Removal (AfR) would be a process to remove an article (as oppose to "delete" an article) where:
- the article would/did survive AfD;
- the subject of that article (i) asks for its removal or (ii) would ask for its removal had the subject known about the article;
- the subject of the article (i) has a clear, demonstrated, present distress over having the BLP article on Wikipedia irrespective of the content or (ii) has a clear, demonstrated, present distress over public disclosure of the material;
- the importance/fame of the person is measured by the number of published materials, the circulation of those materials, and the time period over which those materials were circulated; and
- the demonstrated distress significantly outweighs the importance/fame of the person.
[edit] Details
Every current policy falls into one of the following five categories: 1. Behavioral; 2. Content and Style; 3. Deletion; 4. Enforcement; 5. Legal and copyright: law. This proposed process would be a new policy under Deletion, similar to Office actions. However, this new process will assume that the article otherwise meets all other article standards, e.g., Neutral point of view, Verifiability, What Wikipedia is not, No original research, and Biographies of living persons
As Jimbo states, "Wikipedia is not here to make people sad" and this proposed policy would address a person's desire to remove Wikipedia's republication of sourced information from Wikipedia's article space. The person's desire would not be enough to remove the article and much more would be needed as described below.
Wikipedia:notability means published material, not importance/fame notability. However, it is the published material, in turn, that imparts importance/fame in the person and this importance/fame presently plays no role in Wikipedia article standards. A person described in only a handful of published materials may meet Wikipedia:notability which means the article should not be deleted via AfD. However, under this new process, the handful of published materials may only impart a low importance/fame. A comparison of this importance/fame could then be made to the person's demonstrated distress. Office matters already evaluate a person's level of distressed to make foundation decisions over articles and there is no reason why Wikipedia could not set up a system to evaluate a person's distress over the existence of a Wikipedia article on themselves.
A low importance/fame compared to a great demonstrated distress would allow the article to be removed under this process, even though the article would/did survive AfD. The power to decide under this process will be in the hands of people other than the subject of the article. Opinions contributed to this proposed new process could be restricted to registered users, administrators, bureacrats, or a selected committee.
Article for Removal (AfR) would be a process to remove an article (as oppose to "delete" an article) where:
- the article would/did survive AfD;
- the subject of that article (i) asks for its removal or (ii) would ask for its removal had the subject known about the article;
- the subject of the article (i) has a clear, demonstrated, present distress over having the BLP article on Wikipedia irrespective of the content or (ii) has a clear, demonstrated, present distress over public disclosure of the material;
- the importance/fame of the person is measured by the number of published materials, the circulation of those materials, and the time period over which those materials were circulated; and
- the demonstrated distress significantly outweighs the importance/fame of the person.
For example, Daniel Brandt meets WP:N, but it seems to me that Daniel Brandt has demonstrated distress over the Daniel Brandt article through his numerous pleas on Wikipedia and his importance/fame is relatively small compared to the amount of this demonstrated distress. I don't think that there are that many individuals clamoring to have their BLP article removed and there are even less with such demonstrated distress. For example, Rachel Marsden's position was a request to fix her article to meet WP:BLP, not delete it. To derive such a process, we first need to compile a list of all those desiring to have their BLP article blanked and then review the compilation to figure out the proposed procedure.
As another example, [1] was a boy of 16 in China who's photo was reposted all over the internet. QZ has not asked to have his article deleted from Wikipedia but the news articles seem to indicate that he would ask were he to be aware of the article. There are maybe 20 different articles, distributed worldwide over four years, about Qz. This disbursal may meet WP:N, but none-the-less give a low importance/fame to QZ
