Jeff was arguing that we can't delete a biography which only contains negative material as "What about the astronaut who went cross country in an alleged
attempt to murder her jilted lover? Guess what - her biography's going to be based on that one incident, no matter what the eventual outcome. This isn't a bad thing, either - it's simply reality.
Now, that's a fair point. There may only be one incident that's newsworthy - and there may be no reason to exclude us reporting it.
But biography is by definition a record of someone life, not an incident. If the incident is encyclopedic and verifiable then we should have an article on the incident, and the individuals involved in it, but disallow a biography, since we have inadequate material for such.
If we don't have appropriate information for a biography, we shouldn't have a biography. And if all the information relates to the one incident, we should simply have an article on that.
Further, as has just been pointed out to me:
"The biggest argument in favor of relegating an incident involving a person to a non-bio page, is that a bio page features the name of the person in the title of the article. This causes the bio to rank *much* higher in the search engine rankings when searching for that person's name. By the time all the internal linking to that bio is carried out inside of Wikipedia, you also have the weight of anchor-text content added to its ranking. Presto! Number one in a search for that name."
And that is where the problems begin
Doc