MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Some random thoughts:
1. How much negative material does it contain?
How much is too much? There's no objective answer for this.
2. How much of that material is posted by one person?
Why should this matter? I'm the primary author of two (almost three)
featured articles - if one was a bio negative in tone, does it matter if
it's sourced well?
3. Is it balanced with basic biographical information?
This is where the problem lies - we don't want it imbalanced per BLP, but
we don't want it balanced per NPOV in some cases. One of the major faults
of BLP, as it encourages imbalanced "reporting" of these things.
Let's take the Virginia Tech shooter from this week - imagine if he were
still alive. "Basic biographical information," while likely to exist, are
not going to "balance" out the amount of crazy stuff that has come out.
These issues are not objective.
4. Is it based on one negative incident?
An entire biographical article on Michael Richards balanced too far on the
n-word incident, or the Alec Baldwin thing from this week, yeah, there's
an issue. What about the astronaut who went cross country in an alleged
attempt to murder her jilted lover? Guess what - her biography's going to
be based on that one incident, no matter what the eventual outcome. This
isn't a bad thing, either - it's simply reality.
All that brings me too is that problem articles have
tone and POV issues.
If
4 is the case, it probably won't survive AFD (Barbara Bauer didn't despite
valiant sourcing). We could address POV in an article RFC. Any other
ideas?
The Bauer article is a very poor example - talk about a bad result
comnbined with an atypical situation. If 4 is the case, under normal
circumstances (i.e. the subject isn't in the midst of suing Wikipedia),
the article would likely be kept.
-Jeff
--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.