Stephen Bain wrote:
On 3/27/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Even ignoring the fact that en's inclusion policies on articles like this are a load of crap, it passes the most stringent proposed ones. It has multiple non-trivial mentions in reputable sources (SFWA and Making Light), the sources are all reputable (her website is a valid primary source for information on her). There's a reason it overwhelmingly survived an AfD last year.
But is it NPOV?
That's the key concern with biographies of living persons. A BLP can be impeccably sourced, but if it only presents one side of the story...
In my experience doing OTRS work from time to time, a large proportion of problematic BLPs are (fairly) well sourced, but they are nevertheless not NPOV.
I presume that the POV that you mean is one that is not too flattering to the subject. If the article really is so unbalanced that the subject complains, the first line of action could be to ask them what might be added to restore the balance.
Ec