Toby Bartels wrote:
That explains why the autobiographies are a problem (if you accept mav's premise that we need a filter), but it doesn't explain why they are more unverifiable.
Filters inherently require a subjective decision. They work better when opinions on something fall into a narrow range. I think that the range of attitudes about what should be kept is too wide to make filters workable.
Potentially, a Wikipedia autobiography that attracted attention (say, on its talk page) that led to verifiable sources could be acceptable -- and such articles can be salvaged by following up the sources mentioned on the talk page. But one can't ''start'' with a Wikipedia autobiography and just hope that people will place sources in the talk page; we need to have something verifiable to begin with. Thus a Wikipedia autobiography, when there is no other material, is not verifiable.
The first line of approach on any of these biographic articles should be based on attempts to contact the writer. Deletion should not be considered until a serious effort has been made in that direction.
Ec