[WikiEN-l] Corporate vanity policy enforcement

[Phil Sandifer]

>
> This solves the concern that admins would use the 'shoot on sight'  
> as an
> excuse to delete good articles which they thought were 'non- 
> notable'. My
>  A9 draft makes it clear that an article has to be a VANITY article to
> qualify - and that its notability is not the issue. Thoughts anyone?

One major problem - to my mind, an article written by the subject  
that is notable, sourced, etc ought not be deleted.

The problem word here is "appears," which is going to get ignored as  
people go on lengthy hunts to make the connections so that they can  
show an apparent commercial motive and thus whack the article.

This apparentness needs to be firmly situated in the article text  
itself. That is to say, "An article about a real person or  
corporation that reads as though it was written by the subject..."

This situates the problem firmly as a content problem, which is key  
in content policies.

-Phil