User talk:Random832/WP:V is not a suicide pact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Example

The usage of Dan Goldstick as an example needs to be changed because the current page has 12 references, a long way from none. Jc86035 (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible analogy

What is with the obsession with suicide pacts and in what way does this particular item create a decent analogy here? Are there a large number of folks around here that believe suicide pacts to be magically or even legally unbreakable? If anything these "not a suicide pact" topics are very much like a suicide pact. Which is to say that they are held to be overly important and respected right up until they interfere with business as usual. Primergrey (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added outdated tag

I've put an outdated tag on this essay because the current wording of WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Categorization of people are different from what prompted this essay (in fact, the changes in early 2014 at WP:BLP were designed to removed some of the very ambiguities that seem present in this essay's point of view). WP:BLP should have never been interpreted by people (and it was) to mean all unsourced material about living people should be removed. Luckily the new wording seems to have stamped this misunderstanding out and I've seen very few instances of trouble with editors over the meaning lately. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]