Risker wrote:
On 29/04/2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
That's not a bad biography, it's childish
vandalism that happened to
be missed. Stable versions should help with that in the not too
distant future. I don't really see how such articles harm the subject
- they're obviously vandalised and any reasonable reader will
disregard them (perhaps we should try and cater to unreasonable
readers, but I'm not sure we realistically can).
No, it's a bad biography. It's exactly the type of biography we
don't need.
This guy is president of a single local of a union. That is the only thing
that makes him the least bit notable; and his name is only in the news right
now because his local is in labour negotiations. This time next month,
nobody will be interested in him -except of course for the same people who
have been trashing him thus far.
To say that the president of a large local union is only marginally
notable is a wilfully deceptive POV. It's exactly the kind of behaviour
that creates such a high degree of anxiety around deletion processes.
Bad biography because of childish vandalism, and bad biography because a
personal POV that would suppress biographies of certain classes of
people such as union leaders are two entirely different criteria.
These biographies of people with very marginal
notability are magnets for
vandalism. It's a waste of good editor time to expect people to monitor them
and clean up vandalism in them; yet, failing to actively monitor them (or
messing up when we actually do look at them) leads to the article Jimmy
mentions at the beginning.
Being a vandal magnet is an extremely weak criterion for deleting an
article. It punishes someone's efforts, not on the basis of what is
done, but on a totally speculative basis of what others might do.
Ec