Lee Pilich wrote:
Delirium wrote:
I don't think it would cut nearly enough out. For example, a short article listing my place of birth, high school attended, and university attended is easily verifiable through publically available records.
Then it could be deleted on the grounds that it would never be more than a stub (I don't know if it's formalised anywhere, but deleting things for that reason has been pretty widely done in the past).
Better IMO is to redirect him to [[List of foos]], where "foo" means whatever got him on in the first place (residents of his hometown, Wikipedians trying to make a point [*], etc). A while ago, [[Gnasher]] was redirected to [[Dennis the Menace (UK)]] because it too would (in all probability) never be more than a stub. (This is the last example that I recall coming up on the list.) That is the right thing to do, not to delete [[Gnasher]]; if you delete it, then somebody will come along and create it again.
[*] Actually, if the article is created merely to make a point, then I don't mind particularly if it ends up deleted. I don't care much for articles created to make a point, even when I still have more hope for them than /most/ people do. But if it's created for an earnest reason, even a bad one, then it will come up again and so should be redirected someplace better.
-- Toby