I think Jimbo mentioned last month that there is a problem with self-written biographies: other contributors may be excessively reluctant to 'contradict' the person who presumably knows himself best. This issue arose over the Sheldon Rampton article, although it little or no problem for the William Connelley article.

The other problem is alleged "vanity pages", like Easter Bradford. We haven't come up with strict criteria on how famous a person has to be, to merit an article. Apparently the fame threshold interacts with the "self- promotion" taboo in an undefined way.

As it stands, an article about a contributor is more likely to survive if it's written by someone other than the contributor. The reasoning being, if at least one other person has heard of you, maybe you're important?

Sorry if this didn't make anything clearer other than how incomplete the policy is on self-written and obscure biographies.

Ed Poor