Andrew Gray wrote:
a) Should we start considering whether or not the subject is a public figure in deciding whether or not the article is appropriate? There is, of course, no clear bright line...
b) If not, why not? (Bonus points for giving an ethical argument)
Because the line between "public" and "private" in non-legal purposes no longer exists. In the specific situation of Stokke, one could argue, for our purposes, that she's not a "private" person due to her competing in public events. Qian Zhijun was, by many probable definitions, a "private" person to begin with, but ceased becoming one as he took his notoriety in his own hands. Hell, even Brian Peppers stopped being a "private" individual when he was convicted.
You don't get to choose whether you're public or private is the greater point. It's sort of like "marginal" or "minimal" or "slightly" notability, or being "a little bit pregnant." You may not *want* to be noteworthy or public or known or pregnant, or want others to be, but it happens and that's that.
If we want to write a general interest encyclopedia, we need to be able to disconnect from our personal perspectives and situations and instead look at these issues dispassionately. I mean, the Elephant Man was a sideshow act who got some sympathy from royal nobility - should we cease to have an article on him even though his story isn't really all that different from what we're quibbling with?
We're losing focus.
-Jeff