On 23/05/07, Trebor Rowntree <trebor.rowntree(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/23/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> No, at the moment the problem is that people
really think you can
> outvote fundamental content policies.
But where is the fundamental content policy that
advocates deletion of
_sourced_ articles about individuals famous for negative reasons? I'm not
saying it's wrong, but I don't see it in the fundamental content policies.
Is the fame itself notable? This is explained in some detail in WP:BLP.
e.g. I have (on request of the subject) zapped an article on the
alleged girlfriend of an MP (she may well have been) who had been in a
couple of newspapers. The article was immaculately sourced, and it was
still basically an attack piece on someone of no particular fame at
all. The references section was longer than the text. Fucksake, they
even looked her up on the electoral roll. The article was zapped and
killed and salted and jumped up and down upon, and that was absolutely
the proper course of action. If she does something herself, rather
than merely having the misfortune of being linked to someone famous,
that might be worth an article; but it hasn't happened yet.
It's not just sourcing - it's that the incidents or events themselves
are notable. And the article doesn't have to be written tomorrow, and
insistence on keeping it in RIGHT NOW is deeply missing the point.
- d.