On 10-Sep-06, at 5:57 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 10/09/06, Amgine amgine@saewyc.net wrote:
And, of course, [[WP:LIVING]] has pretty much from its creation said what you're asking for here: facts in the article need to be relevant to the subject's notability.
No, actually. To give an example of what I mean: [[Tom DeLay]]
Then that's an example of an existing policy not being followed. I don't see that adding more policy will make it be followed more. (c.f. [[m:Instruction creep]].)
I suggest that one needs to convince people that (a) this policy is a good idea (b) to do the hard work to make sure it's followed and *reasonably easy* to follow. I think we have (a), we're working on (b).
Well, that particular example was rather extreme, but so far as I can tell the vast majority of [[Tom DeLay]] would still be accepted under [[WP:LIVING]]. And with all due respect to Mr Wales's opinion, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a library of full human biographies (which might possibly be accepted under Wikibooks.)
Perhaps [[WP:LIVING]] could be altered to provide specific guidelines for notability (such as the Florida Public Persons judicial test, as previously suggested) as well as criteria for maximum information to be included. No BLP needs to have blow-by-blow, week-by-week, examinations of every possible legal or publicity scandal. Court decisions, indictments, or other publicly verifiable (NOT newspaper reporting) should certainly be includable, but "politician was visited by lobbyist So-and-so who was later indicted for corruption" is clearly innuendo and irrelevant.
I don't think you have clear enough guidelines to reach (b).
Amgine