746:
have sourced if you had of actually gone to the bother of tagging as unsourced - that is my quibble. This impedes others from possibly rectifying the situation. Instead of allowing the AfD process to play out as it should, you started blanking content. As none of the content is controversial, I suggest you take a softer approach. From
590:, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." There's currently a spate of activity in the article; when it's done, I'll again remove all unverified claims in the article in accordance with that policy. As for inline source tags, I have considered it. —
911:(in addition to other edits). My sequence of actions was PROD → AFD → V, none of which involved blanking.As for being "a member of a set of articles": I'm sorry, I honestly didn't know that such articles couldn't be deleted. What does that policy or guideline say, specifically, about my malfeasance? —
804:
The improvements are appreciated, and provide additional referenced support to clear that bar for me. I also see the original blanking attempt, which I just don't understand. The nominator then listed for AfD - why not go there in the first place if you knew how to do so? Lastly, as a member of a set
937:
My apologies on the blanking accusation - not really sure what happened when I checked it and received a blank page, which now does not happen. Having said that, I am certainly not making any claims to malfeasance - but am simply stating that I much prefer to have an article relatively untouched for
630:
I don't think you're reading those pages in their entirety.The verifiability policy says, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." There are encouraged caveats, but they do not abrogate
745:
Look, I'm not looking for a pissing match - this is getting into the realm of TL;DR territory. I've told you my view and I believe you are wrong. It seems we will not be agreeing with each other and that is fine. The "disruption" and "unfairness" I see is you removing content that other people may
768:
The situation was an article which lacked verification for most of its claims; I rectified that situation. The AFD process (this very page) is still proceeding as it should. Your suggestion has been seen. We have been patient for over fourteen and a half years. —
460:
I'm sorry, that's not what I meant to imply; I should have been more verbose. I want the discussion to run its course and attract as much attention as it deserves, obviously deferring to an administrator if they determine that consensus warrants early closure. —
424:
I personally wouldn't consider three local news reports over the span of 1.17 years to be significant coverage, but I of course support leaving this discussion open to allow other contributors to evaluate otherwise. —
710:
What exactly is "unfair" about removing claims that lacked sourcing, a process provided for by the verifiability policy. I didn't redact the page's history; it's all still there to be read and sourced if possible.
727:, 81.92% of the prose is unequivocally unverified as required by policy, and—without regard to the outcome of this deletion discussion—if it continues to be so, I (or possibly anyone else) will remove it duly. —
211:
723:
Again, I need your guidance on exactly what point I'm attempting to make. I removed the unverified claims from the article because they were unverified, not as an end-run attempt at manual deletion.
673:
does not allow you mass blanking. You unfairly removed content, it was reverted with the intent to source and request sourcing from other users.I would also like to point out that according to
899:
677:, instead of the mass removal of information that you don't find adequate, list for deletion (which you did) - not list for deletion then start blanking to make a point of it. Also,
644:
172:
292:
651:
summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced." You quoted the third part, which depends upon the first, which isn't the matter at hand. —
205:
752:
In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.
275:
119:
104:
938:
a fair evaluation at AfD. I do feel that if this article was deleted, the entire set about the teams in the league would be worse for it.--
754:. As you say, 81.92% of this 900 word article is currently unverified by inline citation - that will take some time. Patience is a virtue.
838:
631:
the wherewithal to remove any unverified material.The behavioral guideline on disrupting
Knowledge to illustrate a point says, "
313:
145:
140:
99:
92:
17:
149:
226:
524:
193:
863:
132:
113:
109:
445:
You don't need an administrator's approval to retract your own AfD nomination. You can certainly do that yourself.
875:
643:
find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question
518:
968:
893:
881:
40:
869:
187:
887:
716:
703:
943:
810:
267:
183:
964:
947:
924:
814:
782:
763:
740:
702:
Given I'm wholly unaware of it, can you educate me as to what point I'm attempting to make by removing "
694:
664:
625:
603:
573:
546:
507:
474:
455:
438:
419:
405:
379:
365:
339:
325:
301:
284:
74:
36:
330:
I've added some refs. A ProQuest search finds 3,700 articles on them, so plenty of reliable sources. -
919:
832:
777:
735:
669:
Thanks, I read just fine. Actually - it is the matter at hand. You were disruptively making a POINT.
659:
598:
541:
503:
469:
446:
433:
410:
But on a personal level, are you now supportive of the article remaining to get to that consensus? -
400:
360:
262:
233:
219:
759:
690:
621:
569:
939:
806:
533:
not being grounds for deletion, I have no objections to the demolition of that straw man. —
88:
68:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
963:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
857:
747:
415:
375:
335:
321:
136:
913:
828:
771:
729:
674:
670:
653:
613:
592:
579:
561:
535:
499:
463:
427:
394:
385:
354:
256:
199:
498:
and there is room for improvement. A poorly written article is not grounds for deletion.
715:
When it's challenged, unverified claims should only be reintroduced to an article with "
682:
389:
296:
279:
54:
588:
burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material
845:
755:
686:
678:
617:
565:
557:
495:
247:
59:
166:
128:
80:
852:
717:
an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
713:
it was reverted with the intent to source and request sourcing from other users.
583:
411:
371:
349:
331:
317:
251:
243:
610:
Do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced.
685:, but now that it was questioned... requesting citations is better etiquette.
564:
and is considered blanking. Consider inline source tags in the future please.
907:
for the first time, and there was a legitimate aticle upon which to build,
529:", which was not the case upon nomination nor at this time. As for
805:
of articles, this piece is a necessary piece of a larger puzzle.--
580:
behavioral guideline on disrupting
Knowledge to illustrate a point
721:
not list for deletion then start blanking to make a point of it.
959:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
827:
because it'd never been sourced in its entire 14+ years; after
392:
that the page in question meets the notability guideline. —
560:. Also, mass deletion of unsourced info is bad etiquette per
704:
ny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it
681:
recommends that you ask for citations. Initially, you were
582:
doesn't seem applicable based on a reading of that page.
370:
Thank you. You are thus removing your deletion request? -
908:
904:
824:
820:
724:
345:
162:
158:
154:
218:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
971:). No further edits should be made to this page.
291:Note: This discussion has been included in the
274:Note: This discussion has been included in the
586:says that "All content must be verifiable. The
293:list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions
823:, it's never been blanked. I, the nominator,
232:
8:
909:I removed everything else that was unsourced
276:list of Ontario-related deletion discussions
120:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
512:The general notability guideline requires "
290:
273:
720:
712:
707:
699:
530:
700:You were disruptively making a POINT.
348:anything else that wasn't cited (IAW
312:and improve. Every other team in the
7:
635:you think someone unfairly removed "
851:template, I brought it here. When
24:
825:proposed the article for deletion
645:shouldn't require a cited source
105:Introduction to deletion process
314:Provincial Junior Hockey League
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
344:Now that is has SOME sources,
1:
783:23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
764:02:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
741:01:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
695:22:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
665:19:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
626:17:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
604:17:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
574:16:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
547:17:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
508:16:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
494:. The team in question meets
475:07:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
456:04:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
439:07:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
420:21:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
406:21:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
380:21:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
366:19:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
340:19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
326:19:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
302:17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
285:17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
268:17:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
948:19:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
925:18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
815:15:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
708:You unfairly removed content
75:00:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
95:(AfD)? Read these primers!
988:
819:As far as I can tell from
608:And you will be reverted.
254:for 14.55 years, now. —
961:Please do not modify it.
584:The verifiability policy
350:the verifiability policy
252:the notability guideline
32:Please do not modify it.
905:provided a few sources
531:poorly written article
93:Articles for deletion
514:significant coverage
242:All 900+ words are
55:(non-admin closure)
821:the page's history
528:
521:
515:
523:
517:
513:
316:have articles. -
304:
287:
110:Guide to deletion
100:How to contribute
57:
979:
916:
903:
850:
844:
774:
732:
656:
595:
538:
519:reliable sources
466:
452:
430:
397:
388:who has found a
357:
299:
282:
259:
248:reliable sources
237:
236:
222:
170:
152:
90:
73:
71:
66:
65:
53:
34:
987:
986:
982:
981:
980:
978:
977:
976:
975:
969:deletion review
914:
855:
848:
842:
772:
730:
654:
593:
536:
464:
448:
428:
395:
355:
297:
280:
257:
179:
143:
127:
124:
87:
84:
79:
69:
61:
60:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
985:
983:
974:
973:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
930:
929:
928:
927:
841:) removed the
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
551:
550:
549:
527:of the subject
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
443:
442:
441:
306:
305:
288:
240:
239:
176:
123:
122:
117:
107:
102:
85:
83:
78:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
984:
972:
970:
966:
962:
957:
956:
949:
945:
941:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
926:
923:
921:
917:
910:
906:
901:
898:
895:
892:
889:
886:
883:
880:
877:
874:
871:
868:
865:
862:
859:
854:
847:
840:
837:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
803:
800:
784:
781:
779:
775:
767:
766:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
744:
743:
742:
739:
737:
733:
726:
722:
718:
714:
709:
705:
701:
698:
697:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
667:
666:
663:
661:
657:
650:
646:
642:
639:" content...
638:
634:
629:
628:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
606:
605:
602:
600:
596:
589:
585:
581:
577:
576:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
552:
548:
545:
543:
539:
532:
526:
520:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
490:
476:
473:
471:
467:
459:
458:
457:
454:
453:
451:
444:
440:
437:
435:
431:
423:
422:
421:
417:
413:
409:
408:
407:
404:
402:
398:
391:
387:
386:administrator
383:
382:
381:
377:
373:
369:
368:
367:
364:
362:
358:
351:
347:
343:
342:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
308:
307:
303:
300:
294:
289:
286:
283:
277:
272:
271:
270:
269:
266:
264:
260:
253:
249:
245:
235:
231:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
185:
182:
181:Find sources:
177:
174:
168:
164:
160:
156:
151:
147:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
125:
121:
118:
115:
111:
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
94:
89:
82:
77:
76:
72:
67:
64:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
960:
958:
940:Concertmusic
912:
896:
890:
884:
878:
872:
866:
860:
835:
807:Concertmusic
801:
770:
751:
728:
725:As it stands
652:
648:
640:
636:
632:
609:
591:
587:
553:
534:
491:
462:
449:
447:
426:
393:
384:I am not an
353:
346:I've removed
309:
255:
241:
229:
223:
215:
208:
202:
196:
190:
180:
86:
62:
49:
47:
31:
28:
876:protections
525:independent
450:Ravenswing
206:free images
915:Fourthords
888:page moves
829:Flibirigit
773:Fourthords
731:Fourthords
655:Fourthords
594:Fourthords
537:Fourthords
500:Flibirigit
465:Fourthords
429:Fourthords
396:Fourthords
356:Fourthords
258:Fourthords
250:, failing
244:unverified
129:Essex 73's
81:Essex 73's
965:talk page
882:deletions
748:WP:VERIFY
637:unsourced
522:that are
390:consensus
298:Spiderone
281:Spiderone
37:talk page
967:or in a
864:contribs
839:contribs
756:DMighton
687:DMighton
675:WP:BLANK
671:WP:POINT
618:DMighton
614:WP:POINT
566:DMighton
562:WP:POINT
173:View log
114:glossary
39:or in a
683:WP:BOLD
612:as per
352:). —
246:to any
212:WP refs
200:scholar
146:protect
141:history
91:New to
63:Zoozaz1
894:rights
870:blocks
853:SimonP
679:WP:USI
649:do not
558:WP:GNG
556:Meets
496:WP:GNG
412:SimonP
372:SimonP
332:SimonP
318:SimonP
184:Google
150:delete
227:JSTOR
188:books
167:views
159:watch
155:links
16:<
944:talk
858:talk
846:prod
833:talk
811:talk
802:Keep
760:talk
706:"?
691:talk
622:talk
578:The
570:talk
554:Keep
504:talk
492:Keep
416:talk
376:talk
336:talk
322:talk
310:Keep
220:FENS
194:news
163:logs
137:talk
133:edit
70:talk
50:keep
920:=Λ=
900:RfA
778:=Λ=
736:=Λ=
719:"
660:=Λ=
616:.
599:=Λ=
542:=Λ=
516:in
470:=Λ=
434:=Λ=
401:=Λ=
361:=Λ=
263:=Λ=
234:TWL
171:– (
946:)
918:|
849:}}
843:{{
813:)
776:|
762:)
750:,
734:|
693:)
658:|
647:.
641:do
633:If
624:)
597:|
572:)
540:|
506:)
468:|
432:|
418:)
399:|
378:)
359:|
338:)
324:)
295:.
278:.
261:|
214:)
165:|
161:|
157:|
153:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
52:.
942:(
922:|
902:)
897:·
891:·
885:·
879:·
873:·
867:·
861:·
856:(
836:·
831:(
809:(
780:|
758:(
738:|
689:(
662:|
620:(
601:|
568:(
544:|
502:(
472:|
436:|
414:(
403:|
374:(
363:|
334:(
320:(
265:|
238:)
230:·
224:·
216:·
209:·
203:·
197:·
191:·
186:(
178:(
175:)
169:)
131:(
116:)
112:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.