Could you give me a definition of "notability" that is not entirely centred around the culture and experience of the person who uses it? I'm yet to hear one. IMO, we should completely abandon, or redefine, "notability" for something more tangible, measurable and worthy of our efforts.
On 18/07/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/18/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
So why don't we delete [[John Couey]] and all the others in [[Category:Convicted child sex offenders]]? Are we punishing them?
Presumably John Couey is a *notable* sex offender, although the article utterly fails to establish his notability.
Articles on notable sex offenders is totally within our mission.
In fact, who *can* we have an article about? Only people who give us permission? Or are there some people we're allowed to punish?
Those weren't serious questions were they? Punishment is *not* our goal. Writing the encyclopaedia is. Keep that in mind, and your way will become clearer.
As for providing details on the offence he committed, I most certainly don't think that's a violation of his privacy.
Depending on the exact case, I think it could be. Can you imagine having a whole paragraph to the article on a Nobel-prize winning physicist like "when Smith was 21, he was arrested for fondling the breasts of a 17-year old neighbour. According to the police report <500 word description of the entire saga>..."?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l