[WikiEN-l] Borderline notable bios (yes, again)

[Sydney aka FloNight]

You have done a good job stating the position that I support.

It is of note that we are not really writing *full* biographies on most of these people. And many of these blp that we do have something approaching a full biography will quickly because outdated. We have little chance of obtaining the updated information on these folks. Yet a number of users supported the arguement that once notable always notable. 

Take care,
Sydney

---- Brian Salter-Duke <b_duke at bigpond.net.au> wrote: 
> My response below appeared very belated as I realised after sending it
> that it woudl go to moderation as I had changed my e-mail address. It is
> of course now old news as the AfD on Angela's article has been closed as
> no consensus - keep.
> 
> This debate had lead me to reconsider my position. I really do not see
> why we should not delete articles on living persons if they request it
> and if they have not put themself firmly into the public domain, such as
> standing for office. Starting a company is not putting yourself into the
> public domain. It is the company that may deserve an article and the
> people who founded it should be mentioned. But that does not imply that
> we should breach their privacy by a full article on the founders.
> Getting elected to the Royal Society or similar is not pushing yourself
> into the public domain. Such a person might be mentioned on an article
> that explained the advance that lead to their election to the RS, but
> if they do not want a full bio, we should not write one. Privacy is very
> important. 
> 
> We are not writing an encyclopedia overnight. If a person is really
> notable, an article can be added later, possibly after their death, if
> they persit in requesting that there be no article in their lifetime. 
> 
> I do not think this course of action is out of line. For example, I
> think "Who's Who" does not force an entry on someone who does not want
> one. They do not argue that someone is notable and people have a right
> to find out about them whether the person wants this or not. I think
> there is a terrible arrogance about forcing a WP article on someone who
> does not want their privacy breached in this way.
> 
> I understand that my approach is very close to the Japan WP approach
> that I asked about at the end. I think it should be followed up and
> implemented in the en WP.
> 
> Apologies for top posting. I do not normally top post, but I am not
> specifically addressing the issues in the post below, just following up
> rather late.
> 
> Brian.
>