On 16 April 2012 14:12, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
The problem arises in the cases of articles which are
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.
That certainly accords with my long-held view, that the whole business of
making inclusionist-deletionist a two-party system breaks down to the
extent that it involves long discussions on points of principle when the
particular case makes only the most marginal difference. (This, naturally,
is an argument that is like to offend both sides.) In starker terms, if we
concede, now or later, that we don't have an unlimited supply of editor
time, then it would be better if it were spent in more productive ways.
But in any case the overarching argument on how worthwhile it is to work on
a given area, such as BLP, doesn't have traction, given that editors will
self-assign as usual. At the "indifference point" we should use PROD-like
deletion, and expanding its scope would seem to be the answer. Perhaps
relaxing the rule that PROD nominations can only be used once in the
lifetime of an article, for BLPs, offers a way forward.