On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 14:08:57 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
So what would you do if the person who crossed the
deletion of their biography? If this policy got off the ground we'd get
of a fine bio (presumably true too) just because
they asked. Readers
wouldn't be able to find out what he/she did on Wikipedia even though it
should've been covered. A policy like this would need to be refined. For
example 1) It should be regarding people who's sole claim to notability
crime that never went to court.
I would merge it to solo Atlantic crossings, or find evidence tat
there is widespread coverage independent of that one achievement.
Of course, it is not terribly /likely/ that this person will request
removal, whereas such requests form those whose "achievements" are
rather less laudable is not quite so rare.
My point being that the first part of this proposed policy should determine
if the bio is actually causing the subject real world harm. Notability isn't
the problem, so it's not the solution either. If there is negative
information in a biography it can be removed. No reason to remove the entire
Then there's also people like Lee Harvey Oswald (or any other killer for
that matter) whose notability rely entirely on something negative. Suppose
Oswald was still alive and requested deletion because his entry was too
negative. Would we do it? What if the murder was extensively covered by the
media, but no sentence was passed yet by the court? In my opinion we don't
need any new policy to deal with this. Just common sense and some hands-on
OFFICE members and stable versions...If we don't approve possibly
problematic content straight away, people won't see it which has the same
result as the one we want.