"I don't want to be number one on Google. This is the position I expressed to Brad Patrick over a year ago. I could live with a bio under those conditions. ... All it would take is a new flag in the system to generate a "noindex" meta in the header of certain articles. You wouldn't have to change robots.txt. It might be slightly easier than getting the article deleted, and it could be one option to offer BLP victims short of a deletion" (Brandt)
Why not agree to this?
In saying that, I'm not arguing that Brandt should be treated differently, but we could consider the following options:
1) *no index bios on subject's request*. We keep the info, but the subject doesn't have an article on them , with all the vandalism or POV pushing risks, as top on google. They don't need to check their article everyday.
OR
2) *no index all low-notability living-person bios* which have experienced any problems. Any admin, or OTRS op seeing repeat problems can flag it as such, reducing the collateral damage if their are future issues.
OR
3) *no index ALL BLPs* - being in [[category:Living persons]] could automatically flag the article. This would be easiest to maintain, and apply consistently. The argument against it will be that it will take [[George W. Bush]] etc off google, but if it were combined with stable versions, so that all BLPs were removed from Google UNLESS they were stable, we might have a workable solution. The popular ones are likely to have stable versions very quickly. Incidentally, this would also reduce the attraction of vanity bios.
Is this crazy?
Doc