Bryan Derksen wrote:
Ben Emmel wrote:
No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said, if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then.
Woah, a whole _year_? I'd thought the article was just temporarily deleted while some details got sorted out. _Now_ I've got a serious grounds for objection.
The point here is not the article itself, it is the abuse of process that was involved.
As I said in another post, I'm happy to reduce the time period from one year, but what I'd really like to see first is for us to all take a really serious look at WP:LIVING, and in particular a strengthening of the "Presumption in favor of Privacy".
"In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."