On 11/06/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/11/06, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We have already deleted or blanked pages that the
subjects haven't
wanted,
Which cases are you thinking about? I'm aware of the [[Brian Peppers]]
case, which was a Jimbo Wales decision and which concerned basic
matters of human dignity. Other cases of actual articles being deleted
because of the subject's complaints would be interesting to document,
so we can try to establish reasonable and consistent policy in those
matters.
I will not name names (mainly since I can't remember any), but a
number of "articles" have been deleted after the subject wrote to us
and asked - I've done a couple. But they weren't deleted just because
they asked - they were deleted because our policies said we probably
ought to.
Pages created solely to disparage the subject are common - and,
remember, there's no notability test there; if [[George W. Bush]] was
created with one revision saying "he's a fascist!" we could speedy it.
Articles which aren't disparaging but are about someone who themself
freely claims to be insignificant - they're not important, they're not
a public figure, why argue the toss just to keep an article no-one
will ever read?
It's just a lot easier to do this when someone's been so kind as to
point the article out for us, when it slipped past new-pages
patrollers, rather than wait for someone else to stumble across it and
suggest deletion. The community does have - not in this case,
particularly, but generally speaking - an overly "censorship! no!"
reaction to "could you please get rid of this trivial article?", even
in cases where the request is honest, well-meant, and polite. We
should really work on that.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk