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