MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Some random thoughts:
- How much negative material does it contain?
How much is too much? There's no objective answer for this.
- How much of that material is posted by one person?
Why should this matter? I'm the primary author of two (almost three) featured articles - if one was a bio negative in tone, does it matter if it's sourced well?
- Is it balanced with basic biographical information?
This is where the problem lies - we don't want it imbalanced per BLP, but we don't want it balanced per NPOV in some cases. One of the major faults of BLP, as it encourages imbalanced "reporting" of these things.
Let's take the Virginia Tech shooter from this week - imagine if he were still alive. "Basic biographical information," while likely to exist, are not going to "balance" out the amount of crazy stuff that has come out. These issues are not objective.
- Is it based on one negative incident?
An entire biographical article on Michael Richards balanced too far on the n-word incident, or the Alec Baldwin thing from this week, yeah, there's an issue. What about the astronaut who went cross country in an alleged attempt to murder her jilted lover? Guess what - her biography's going to be based on that one incident, no matter what the eventual outcome. This isn't a bad thing, either - it's simply reality.
All that brings me too is that problem articles have tone and POV issues. If 4 is the case, it probably won't survive AFD (Barbara Bauer didn't despite valiant sourcing). We could address POV in an article RFC. Any other ideas?
The Bauer article is a very poor example - talk about a bad result comnbined with an atypical situation. If 4 is the case, under normal circumstances (i.e. the subject isn't in the midst of suing Wikipedia), the article would likely be kept.
-Jeff