Delirium wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 28/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, Wikipedia is not paper, but if we're going to write readable articles not everything can make the cut. Naturally, it's notable incidents that should get in. Trouble is that not everyone agrees on what is notable and what isn't.
Incidents are one thing - putting articles under a name when the incident is the notable thing is another.
I think many (most?) people agree with this in principle, but there's wide disagreement over the threshold for when someone's role in an incident is sufficient to make *them* notable. Serial killers on the FBI's "10 most wanted" list clearly meet the threshold; some lower-level executive embroiled in the Enron scandal clearly doesn't; but there's plenty in between.
What those who appear to be taking a hard-line about deleting these BLPs for non-notable people should be taking note of is that the argument is not about any specific person's notability. It is about how we determine that they do not warrant an article. When you say that any admin can delete these articles on the basis of his own opinion you run into the fact that many of these admins have not established themselves as having trustworthy judgement. There has been a suggestion that admins who abuse the BLP excuse would be swiftly disciplined, but there is no confidence that this will indeed happen as quickly as the excuses are used.
Ec