Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
(2) A presumption against publishing articles on people who have been victims of stalking, in cases where publication of an article on Wikipedia might subject them to additional harassment.
For a while I've thought something like "Wikipedia is not the creator of news" should apply. (Probably badly worded; reword as you wish). If creating a Wikipedia article itself helps to spread or advance something described in the article, we shouldn't have it. (This only applies when that article specifically, not just Wikipedia in general, advances a cause. We wouldn't delete the article for Internet or the one for Wikipedia itself.)
That's all Wikipedia articles, though. Having an article about Company Foo, even if it's already very famous, potentially further raises its fame, by making more information about it available on the internet. Having an article about Some Small City in Greece does the same... the latter (creation of geographical articles) even helps promote tourism. Of course, *overt* promotion beyond neutral reporting of what has been reported elsewhere is to be banned, but we shouldn't ban an neutral article on a city in Greece just because having the article promotes tourism to that city.
-Mark