Andrew Gray wrote:
Are we really saying that *because we made up an arbitrary rule ourselves*, we get to ignore any form of editorial sense and then loudly disclaim responsibility for the result? Do people honestly believe that this makes us an encyclopedia? A grand game of nomic over what does and doesn't constitute a topic, an endless series of rules on who we can and cannot write about, without any attempt to apply *judgement* to them? Without any attempt to say - hey, sometimes we have to make decisions on things?
Many of us are applying judgment; we just reach the opposite conclusions in some cases. I, for one, make the considered judgment that as an encyclopedia with thorough coverage, we would be remiss in failing to provide at least a short biography of a person who's received major coverage (including a front-page story) in large-circulation newspapers. Whether she *should* have received such coverage is another debate, but not one that's my decision, since I don't edit those newspapers. I would tend towards no, but then I would say that about [[Natalee Holloway]] too, and I don't plan to argue for her article to be deleted either.
-Mark