On 5/6/05, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)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