This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
There used to be an article on Wikipeidia about Russell Mills, but apparently it was speedily deleted by an admin who has not been active on Wikipeia since 13 January 2014, sigh... XOttawahitech (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was speedily deleted as being an unreferenced
WP:BLP, which it was. There is now a reference, although it may only be reliable as a source for the award, not for background. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 18:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
It was removed via G10, likely over "fired" and it was completely unsourced at the time. Looking at it, G10 was a bit strong since "fired" was the only negative thing in it, but being an unsourced BLP, the bar is pretty low for deletion. It was about 3x longer than it is now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the we're supposed to grant unreferenced BLPs a 10 day grace period, per
WP:BLPPROD. There's a lot of misuses of speedy deletion on Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, it wasn't a PROD, it was a CSD and was back in 2010. I think the word "fired" is what made the admin a bit quick on the trigger, and the fact that it had zero sources. There is no "grace period" for unsourced BLPs, they are held to the strictest standards, particularly when they contain negative material, as they can have real world consequences. BTW, your additions look good and I think make it a bit more clear as to notability. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More references - are these acceptable at Wikipedia?
First is a little iffy, a school of journalist but might be ok. The others seem perfectly fine to me and would be preferable for contentious stuff. The NYT link you gave is borked, but obviously there is no issue with a NYT link as long as it isn't on the blogs. Then the issue is one of "due", but a single mention of the firing should be fine with a couple sources, to reduce any question as to wp:v. The book probably has the most weight. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
