On 3/27/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Oh pshaw.
Even ignoring the fact that en's inclusion policies on articles like this are a load of crap, it passes the most stringent proposed ones. It has multiple non-trivial mentions in reputable sources (SFWA and Making Light), the sources are all reputable (her website is a valid primary source for information on her). There's a reason it overwhelmingly survived an AfD last year.
But is it NPOV?
That's the key concern with biographies of living persons. A BLP can be impeccably sourced, but if it only presents one side of the story...
In my experience doing OTRS work from time to time, a large proportion of problematic BLPs are (fairly) well sourced, but they are nevertheless not NPOV.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
How would you suppose we NPOV the article on a scam artist?
Mgm