Phil Sandifer wrote:
I don't think the small but hardcore following necessarily makes their views encyclopedic - consider the case of Lyndon LaRouche, which the arbcom has ruled ought not be mentioned in articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche. So I would still lean towards this not being encyclopedic.
Has the ArbCom actually ruled that LaRouche ought not to be mentioned in articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche? Or is it more accurate to say that one particular user with a history of problems was instructed not to do that? It's an important distinction, because it is not for the ArbCom to make broad rulings on matters of content alone.
--Jimbo