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