 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
I am saving this comment here, as the article and its talk page may both be deleted.
- The article Fahd Salih Sulayman Al Jutayli is currently before Afd. I am attempting to add newer references, revert some earlier counter-policy excisions and referencectomies, and bring it up to date, so it will survive Afd.
- I created a new section, Fahd Salih Sulayman Al Jutayli#Background, immediately after the lead section, attempting to briefly list the several events that establish al Jutayli is not an instance of blp1e. The nominator excised some of that section with the edit summary “original research, the content already mentioned later”.
- I dont agree that any portion of that section contained original research. I think it is completely appropriate for a section entitled background to briefly list information covered in more detail below.
- Our policies do not prohibit those who nominated articles for deletion, or those who have voiced a delete opinion from editing the article while it is before Afd. I have explained, at various fora, that I think those in the delete camp have already gone on record that the article is hopeless -- cannot be improved, and so it is almost always a mistake for them to edit the article while it is before Afd. In those discussions various people have pointed out what strikes me as an exceptional condition -- what if the nominator is the first person to notice that a passage containing slander was slipped into the article.
- But this edit was not reverting slander.
- In my opinion, contributors trying to address issues raised in an Afd should not have to cope with edit conflicts with those who have gone on record that the article cannot be improved. Those in teh delete camp can state their concerns in the Afd.
- Note, I am prepared to assume good faith, and that it simply never occurred to the nominator that their “improvements” seemed disruptive.
- In my opinion, even if improvement to the point the article was going to pass Afd seemed hopeless to practically everyone, I think it is best for those in the delete camp to give the individual or individual trying to address the issues a clear hand. Giving them a clear hand, eliminates dark suspicions later. If the deletion was, after all, inevitable, those in the keep camp, cannot grumble and think -- “if only those tendetious types in the delete camp had stopped impeding my efforts, the article might have survived Afd.” Geo Swan (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)