On 4/20/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
But why do we need -- or want -- a biography of
Brandt so much?
...
So why, then, have we dug in our heels so thoroughly on this? Why
can't we just get rid of the article already and all go back to doing
something rather more useful than this endless fighting?
Because he's a notable figure, and we should have articles on notable
subjects. Just because he's noisy about it doesn't mean we should treat
it differently, and his noise level has made him the poster boy for
folks who want to have subjects dictate content.
If it weren't him, it would be someone else. If you don't want to be
noteworthy, don't do things that attract attention to yourself.
Our notability guidelines -- overly simplistic nature and
permissiveness towards the utterly trivial aside --were never meant to
be a suicide pact. The question to ask is not whether Brandt "meets
the criteria for inclusion" or whatever the wording of the day is.
It's whether having an article on him actually *benefits* anyone, and
whether any benefit outweighs the frankly horrific cost we're having
to pay to keep it around.
Kirill