Talk:Edward G. Winter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Note on deletion

Just wanted to note that this article was deleted by Doc glasgow on 14 September 2006 (as far as I can see, this was done as a speedy deletion, and the page was therefore never listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). Today (6 October 2006) I have restored it. I think it's clear that Winter is notable enough to have an article, and, even if the current one is not perfect, this is something to be solved by improving the article, not by deleting it. --Camembert 13:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have re-deleted it. The article contained unreferenced negative maerial per WP:LIVING. Anyone restoring it should be aware that they will be personally responsible for the re-publication of this material, and they should be careful to check that they are not republishing libels.--Doc 13:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

By all means write a new article conforming to WP:LIVING demands. --Doc 13:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: I've restubbed with any offending material removed and courtesy-blanked the majority of this talk page. A fresh start = good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hard to argue with the new version, of course, but I cannot understand why the old one was deleted. As I read the relevant policies, the correct thing to do if an article contains unreferenced negative material and also some perfectly reasonable stuff (as this one did) is not to delete the entire article and all its past revisions, but to delete the unreferenced negative stuff and leave the rest intact (this is indeed surely the correct approach; imagine how many times a more obviously controversial article, such as one on a contemporary politician, would have to be deleted and begun again from scratch otherwise). If I restored the article and then deleted the offending material from it, would there be objections (and if so, why)? --Camembert 16:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You're technically right. The only difference now is that the offending stuff is out of the history, and it doesn't appear like it's a big loss. The article still exists, so that's all that ultimately matters to me at this stage until I can expand it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm, OK. Maybe it's the principle of it that bothers me more than anything else. Oh well, if we end up with an article with some reasonable content then I can hardly complain. --Camembert 16:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The principle is that unreferenced negative material dies, period.--Doc 16:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)