On 5/6/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
More seriously, I think this guy's case is difficult because it's right at the edge of what we consider valid WP content. He doesn't have any notability outside the Usenet connection, and yet it would be somewhat contorted to explain "Kook of the Millennium" without naming names.
To take an example from other encyclopedias, Britannica, Oxford Classical Dictionary, etc, have a number of short articles on various obscure disreputable figures of ancient Rome. They are included not because they have accomplishments of their own, but because notable authors will make casual references to them ("as smelly as Acilius") ...
So I guess that means that we can include the astrologer's name if he's alluded to in a Philip Roth novel...
Right. If he's named as a kook (or anything) somewhere vaguely reputable, we can use it. But we can't allow Usenet to determine who is or isn't notable.
Also bear in mind that your disreputable ancient Roman figures are long dead. Their livelihoods aren't going to be harmed because someone calls them smelly. ;-)
Sarah