The problem arises in the cases of articles which are libelous,
malicious, or manifestly unfair. Other instances, other than people who
are clearly notable, are not relevant; it doesn't matter whether we have
articles or not, promotional or critical, so it doesn't matter if the
subject has the power to delete. I realize that sentence is hard to
understand. Basically it means that except for the famous or maligned, it
doesn't matter whether there is an article or not or what its content is.
If we let people delete articles on themselves, they
those articles not closely conforming to their own idea of
themselves, and this gives them a veto power over content. No BLP will
then be other than promotional. In my experience the problem with
most little-watched articles, bio or otherwise, is much more likely to
be promotionalism than abuse.
It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
subject in consideration about whether we should have an article,
unless an exception can be made according to other Wikipedia rules, in
particular, Do No Harm. People have the right to a fair article, but
not to a favorable one.
I agree that the ratio of editors to articles is much too low. What we
need is not fewer bios, but more editors. Encouraging new people to
work on BLPs is the solution.
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
DGG at the enWP
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: