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because outdated.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(a)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.