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.
Delete, then redirect There's nothing here to justify a stand-alone article. The blocked editor, and his block-evading sock, were on a campaign to undo settled deletions and redirects that were fully in line with our policies about notability and reliable sourcing and fully in line with the guidance found at the World's Oldest People Wikiproject page. That sort of disruption ought not be rewarded. If these actions succeed, we will surely see more. Our message to these persistent longevity hobbyists who refuse to abide by our policies and our dispute resolution processes should be uniform. We not only block them when we become aware of them; we also thwart their improper purpose. There's a reason longevity cases are subject to ARBCOM-imposed sanctions.
David in DC (
talk)
17:43, 15 June 2016 (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.
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.
Delete, then redirect There's nothing here to justify a stand-alone article. The blocked editor, and his block-evading sock, were on a campaign to undo settled deletions and redirects that were fully in line with our policies about notability and reliable sourcing and fully in line with the guidance found at the World's Oldest People Wikiproject page. That sort of disruption ought not be rewarded. If these actions succeed, we will surely see more. Our message to these persistent longevity hobbyists who refuse to abide by our policies and our dispute resolution processes should be uniform. We not only block them when we become aware of them; we also thwart their improper purpose. There's a reason longevity cases are subject to ARBCOM-imposed sanctions.
David in DC (
talk)
17:43, 15 June 2016 (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.