Re: [WikiEN-l] Inclusionists vs deletionists
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: As an admin who closes a fair few AfDs, and as a human being who isn't a big fan of loudmouthed ideological posturing, I have to say that I rather like such topic areas. Well, there is currently an AfD in progress that is looking a bit like a train wreck, so some do still split the community. Though the issue is more BLP than notability (though notability is borderline). I'm tempted to actually formalise the proposal I've had floating around for a while (in my head) to say that BLPs and (biographical articles in general) should require published biographies during the person's lifetime and/or obituaries after death. Would anyone on this mailing list be willing to bounce ideas around about that? The sticking point is what constitutes a 'published biography'? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Inclusionists vs deletionists
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: As an admin who closes a fair few AfDs, and as a human being who isn't a big fan of loudmouthed ideological posturing, I have to say that I rather like such topic areas. Well, there is currently an AfD in progress that is looking a bit like a train wreck, so some do still split the community. Though the issue is more BLP than notability (though notability is borderline). I'm tempted to actually formalise the proposal I've had floating around for a while (in my head) to say that BLPs and (biographical articles in general) should require published biographies during the person's lifetime and/or obituaries after death. Would anyone on this mailing list be willing to bounce ideas around about that? The sticking point is what constitutes a 'published biography'? Carcharoth Goes too far. A Procrustean Bed. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Inclusionists vs deletionists
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Goes too far. A Procrustean Bed. Really? What about this proposal? In light of such examples, I think it’s high time to start a discussion on whether to amend Wikipedia’s BLP policy as follows: *WP contributors will not start biographies on lesser-known living people without their permission. The project is full of three-sentence stubs on people of minor notability, more often than not started by contributors eager to increase their number of “articles created”. *If a lesser-known biographical subject wants their WP biography deleted, their request will be honored. The biographical information for this subject will be replaced with a template stating something along the lines of: We regret that Ms/Mrs/Mr X decided not to have his biography featured on WP. For further information, please consult their website. That was from User:DracoEssentialis (12:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)). I'm also going to post what I proposed at that AfD, but I'll do that in another thread. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
I'm posting here an argument I made in a recent AfD, explaining why I think more stringent notability requirements are needed for biographical articles: The right point to assess someone's notability and write a definitive article about them is at that point (or sometimes when they retire). Any BLP is only a work in progress until that point is reached. [Some say] Notability, once attained, does not diminish. That might seem true, but what is being assessed is not the subject's true notability, but a fluctuating 'notability during lifetime' that can wax and wane over time, with the true level of notability not being established until someone's career or life is over. Some people gain awards and recognitions and have long and diverse careers and have glowing obituaries written about them, and pass into the history of the field they worked in. Others have more pedestrian careers. The point is that it is rarely possible to make an accurate assessment until the right point is reached. What you end up with if you have low standards for allowing articles on BLPs is a huge number of borderline BLPs all across Wikipedia (heavily weighted towards contemporary coverage [...]), the vast majority of the subjects of which will not have prominent (or any) obituaries published about them, and in 50 years time or so the articles will look a bit silly, cobbled together from various scraps and items published during the subject's lifetime, but with no proper, independent assessment of their place in history. It has been said before, but that is why specialist biographical dictionaries often have as one of their inclusion criteria that someone has to be dead before having an article. I'm not saying we should go that far, but there is a case for many BLPs of saying 'if there is no current published biography, wait until this career/life is over and make an assessment at that point', and until then either delete or have a bland stub. The above is why I rarely edit BLPs. It is far easier (and more satisfying) to edit about a topic once it is reasonably 'complete', not ongoing. The latter statements applies to more than BLPs (biographies of living people), for example it applies to any 'news' topic, but it does apply especially to BLPs as they are a minefield because they require careful maintenance. To give some examples of articles I've edited or created that are BLPs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Mestel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Lieberman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_W._Moore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._M._Hedges Those aren't very good examples. What I'm really looking for is a way to illustrate how some people become notable, and then fade into obscurity, while others maintain notability and accumulate coverage in reliable sources throughout their lives, rather than only briefly. The latter are good topics for encyclopedia articles, but the latter tend not to be. Is there a way to argue for more stringent notability requirements that won't get shot down? Essentially, what I'm saying Wikipedia needs to avoid is bequeathing a lot of stubby articles to future generations of editors who will get stuck trying to find out anything more about people who have faded back into obscurity and for whom it is often difficult to ascertain if they are still living. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
I'm posting here an argument I made in a recent AfD, explaining why I think more stringent notability requirements are needed for biographical articles: The right point to assess someone's notability and write a definitive article about them is at that point (or sometimes when they retire). Any BLP is only a work in progress until that point is reached. [Some say] Notability, once attained, does not diminish. That might seem true, but what is being assessed is not the subject's true notability, but a fluctuating 'notability during lifetime' that can wax and wane over time, with the true level of notability not being established until someone's career or life is over. Some people gain awards and recognitions and have long and diverse careers and have glowing obituaries written about them, and pass into the history of the field they worked in. Others have more pedestrian careers. The point is that it is rarely possible to make an accurate assessment until the right point is reached. What you end up with if you have low standards for allowing articles on BLPs is a huge number of borderline BLPs all across Wikipedia (heavily weighted towards contemporary coverage [...]), the vast majority of the subjects of which will not have prominent (or any) obituaries published about them, and in 50 years time or so the articles will look a bit silly, cobbled together from various scraps and items published during the subject's lifetime, but with no proper, independent assessment of their place in history. It has been said before, but that is why specialist biographical dictionaries often have as one of their inclusion criteria that someone has to be dead before having an article. I'm not saying we should go that far, but there is a case for many BLPs of saying 'if there is no current published biography, wait until this career/life is over and make an assessment at that point', and until then either delete or have a bland stub. The above is why I rarely edit BLPs. It is far easier (and more satisfying) to edit about a topic once it is reasonably 'complete', not ongoing. The latter statements applies to more than BLPs (biographies of living people), for example it applies to any 'news' topic, but it does apply especially to BLPs as they are a minefield because they require careful maintenance. To give some examples of articles I've edited or created that are BLPs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Mestel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Lieberman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_W._Moore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._M._Hedges Those aren't very good examples. What I'm really looking for is a way to illustrate how some people become notable, and then fade into obscurity, while others maintain notability and accumulate coverage in reliable sources throughout their lives, rather than only briefly. The latter are good topics for encyclopedia articles, but the latter tend not to be. Is there a way to argue for more stringent notability requirements that won't get shot down? Essentially, what I'm saying Wikipedia needs to avoid is bequeathing a lot of stubby articles to future generations of editors who will get stuck trying to find out anything more about people who have faded back into obscurity and for whom it is often difficult to ascertain if they are still living. Carcharoth We can delete articles whose subject had only ephemeral notability. In such cases nearly the only notable event, viewed in perspective, is that they once had a Wikipedia article. That is no reason to not have an article while there is public interest in them. We determine notability by information published in generally reliable sources which is not that difficult to ascertain. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
On 23 March 2012 14:04, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: It has been said before, but that is why specialist biographical dictionaries often have as one of their inclusion criteria that someone has to be dead before having an article. I'm not saying we should go that far, but there is a case for many BLPs of saying 'if there is no current published biography, wait until this career/life is over and make an assessment at that point', and until then either delete or have a bland stub. Define published biography. Two paragraphs? A page on a notable website? A news media article? A detailed criticism with life story mixed in? A whole book on them? (Define book.) You've come up with a criterion that seems cut-and-dry to you, but is actually horribly subjective and will be a matter for endless irresolvable disputes. It's not like arbcom is in *need* of more work ... - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Inclusionists vs deletionists
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Carcharoth wrote: *WP contributors will not start biographies on lesser-known living people without their permission. The project is full of three-sentence stubs on people of minor notability, more often than not started by contributors eager to increase their number of “articles created”. In the Did You Know discussion, someone brought up the possibility that a an inappropriate DYK (about a recent murder victim's body) was created to increase a user's Wikicup. I hadn't even heard of Wikicup, and when I checked it out it seemed like trouble waiting to happen. When you have an Xbox or Playstation game and people get Achievements on it, that's relatively harmless. Nobody cares if someone goes around trying to beat a monster in under 30 seconds in order to gain a bunch of ultimately useless points. (Though even then there have been cases where achievements disrupted multiplayer games.) But when you have a similar system on Wikipedia, you end up encouraging activity that would be considered OCD in other contexts. Regardless of how useless the points are, you have people concentrating more on points than on doing what Wikipedia is meant to do. Wikipedia is not an online multiplayer game, and it shouldn't encourage people to treat it as one. It shouldn't have scores, and it shouldn't judge contributors in ways that encourage treating it like it has scores.___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Inclusionists vs deletionists
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Goes too far. A Procrustean Bed. Really? What about this proposal? In light of such examples, I think its high time to start a discussion on whether to amend Wikipedias BLP policy as follows: *WP contributors will not start biographies on lesser-known living people without their permission. The project is full of three-sentence stubs on people of minor notability, more often than not started by contributors eager to increase their number of articles created. *If a lesser-known biographical subject wants their WP biography deleted, their request will be honored. The biographical information for this subject will be replaced with a template stating something along the lines of: We regret that Ms/Mrs/Mr X decided not to have his biography featured on WP. For further information, please consult their website. That was from User:DracoEssentialis (12:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)). I'm also going to post what I proposed at that AfD, but I'll do that in another thread. Carcharoth A living person should have the right to request and get deletion of a sketchy biography. However, often full biographical details of someone who is clearly notable not only are seldom available, but also not of any particular value to the reader. Attempts to fill them in based on sketchy information do not give happy results. It is what they did that is notable that we have information about. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
n Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Carcharoth wrote: [Some say] Notability, once attained, does not diminish. Unfortunately, WP:N says that too. What you're saying makes sense, but it is contradicted by our policies. If someone can meet the requirements for notability at one moment in time, they are notable according to our rules. Good luck changing the notability rules. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
n Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Carcharoth wrote: [Some say] Notability, once attained, does not diminish. Unfortunately, WP:N says that too. What you're saying makes sense, but it is contradicted by our policies. If someone can meet the requirements for notability at one moment in time, they are notable according to our rules. Good luck changing the notability rules. What we need is better procedures for changing rules. I've been bogged down anytime I tried lately. One or two folks come along and the situation is little better than one of these discussions. No close. fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
On 23 March 2012 14:04, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I'm posting here an argument I made in a recent AfD, explaining why I think more stringent notability requirements are needed for biographical articles: And I see that the specific example you're talking about is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Hawkins_%28radio_presenter%29 This is a rather broad and (as I've noted) hideously vague proposed solution to a very specific problem, viz. someone who is apparently well within notability guidelines wanting an article deleted because he doesn't have control of it, and is abusive towards anyone who tries to help. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 March 2012 14:04, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I'm posting here an argument I made in a recent AfD, explaining why I think more stringent notability requirements are needed for biographical articles: And I see that the specific example you're talking about is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Hawkins_%28radio_presenter%29 This is a rather broad and (as I've noted) hideously vague proposed solution to a very specific problem, viz. someone who is apparently well within notability guidelines wanting an article deleted because he doesn't have control of it, and is abusive towards anyone who tries to help. I've written on this topic before, well before this AfD. If you want, I can dig up the diffs, but I'm looking at the general case here, not this specific one (I'll post a response to your previous post that I had been drafting). I should have made it clearer that this is a proposal intended for all BLPs, not any specific one (but I thought that was obvious). And yes, I know any concrete proposal will have to be proposed on-wiki. I just wanted to bounce ideas around here. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:18 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 March 2012 14:04, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: It has been said before, but that is why specialist biographical dictionaries often have as one of their inclusion criteria that someone has to be dead before having an article. I'm not saying we should go that far, but there is a case for many BLPs of saying 'if there is no current published biography, wait until this career/life is over and make an assessment at that point', and until then either delete or have a bland stub. Define published biography. Two paragraphs? A page on a notable website? A news media article? A detailed criticism with life story mixed in? A whole book on them? I know that this is the critical point, and I never said it was cut-and-dried. It would need discussion, but let's actually discuss it (with examples) instead of dismissing it. What I would say is that Wikipedia biographies should have at least one source that 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Mestel For Leon Mestel, the qualifying sources would be his entry in Who's Who and in Debrett's People of Today. Those are UK-specific sources. What would the equivalent be in the USA? 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Lieberman For Philip Lieberman, you have brief biographical paragraphs in lists of the contributors for volumes he has contributed to, plus the pages published by his university that summarise his career. I haven't been able to find anything else, but this will be the situation for a lot of academics. While they are still actively engaged in research, you often won't find anything beyond their university pages and brief biographical summaries for conferences they speak at as invited guests and in publications they contribute to. Ironically, his son has an entry in Encyclopedia Britannica, but he doesn't: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1798503/Daniel-Lieberman 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_W._Moore For Norman W. Moore you have an entry in Who's Who, an entry in Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, biographical information in books he has published. The example of this in the article is now a dead link, but it can be seen here: http://www.nhbs.com/oaks_dragonflies_and_people_tefno_117959.htmltab_tag=bio You also have the example of a festschrift (this is a form of tribute, which would in most cases count as a solid biographical reference). 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._M._Hedges The final example, Robert Hedges, is more difficult. There will likely be suitable material out there, but I haven't been able to find anything that would really satisfy me yet. By the way, having some suitable level of biographical material published doesn't mean someone is automatically notable in terms of Wikipedia inclusion criteria. But what I'm saying is that if someone *doesn't* have some level of biographical material published, then that (and the type of material it is) should weigh heavily in whether to keep an article, how to treat deletion requests from the subject of an article, and how to edit articles that are kept. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
On 23 March 2012 17:10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: For Leon Mestel, the qualifying sources would be his entry in Who's Who and in Debrett's People of Today. Those are UK-specific sources. What would the equivalent be in the USA? Who's Who might say this guy is notable, but the actual content is completely self-sourced. It's effectively a sponsored blog entry. This still looks way like you're saying We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this. And that doesn't make a bad idea (which this really strongly resembles) into a good one, at all. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 March 2012 17:10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: For Leon Mestel, the qualifying sources would be his entry in Who's Who and in Debrett's People of Today. Those are UK-specific sources. What would the equivalent be in the USA? Who's Who might say this guy is notable, but the actual content is completely self-sourced. It's effectively a sponsored blog entry. You miss my point. What I'm saying is that if someone who *could* have a Who's Who entry doesn't have one, then we should be asking why. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: What I would say is that Wikipedia biographies should have at least one source that I knew I should have finished the draft before posting it... That sentence was meant to say something like should have at least one source that is recognisably biographical. But really just delete that unfinished sentence. I also forgot to say that it would be simpler to just forbid the use of news sources on BLPs that lack non-news sources. It is the aggregation of factoids from various news sources to make a biography that is really unprofessional. No reputable biographer would do that. I'm trying to remember what I said in an earlier discussion (years ago now): if no-one else has attempted to write a biography, Wikipedia shouldn't be the one to attempt it first. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
On 23 March 2012 17:20, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Who's Who might say this guy is notable, but the actual content is completely self-sourced. It's effectively a sponsored blog entry. You miss my point. What I'm saying is that if someone who *could* have a Who's Who entry doesn't have one, then we should be asking why. Oh yes, it's definitely missing articles list stuff. Agreed. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:25 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 March 2012 17:20, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Who's Who might say this guy is notable, but the actual content is completely self-sourced. It's effectively a sponsored blog entry. You miss my point. What I'm saying is that if someone who *could* have a Who's Who entry doesn't have one, then we should be asking why. Oh yes, it's definitely missing articles list stuff. Agreed. No, I'm not asking why those with Who's Who entries that lack Wikipedia articles lack Wikipedia articles. I'm asking why those who chose to opt out of Who's Who (by not sending in an entry) are not allowed to opt out of Wikipedia. Sometimes the reasons for not wanting to be publicly listed in a publication like Who's Who are the same as for not wanting to be listed in Wikipedia. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] sad news
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians Oh dear. I see from reading that page that not only have we lost Ben Yates, but also Slrubenstein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Rubenstein The death of both these Wikipedians was mentioned briefly in the Signpost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-03-12/News_and_notes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-03-19/News_and_notes Very sad news in both cases. My condolences to those that knew them. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
On 2.3 March 2012 18:45, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: No, I'm not asking why those with Who's Who entries that lack Wikipedia articles lack Wikipedia articles. I'm asking why those who chose to opt out of Who's Who (by not sending in an entry) are not allowed to opt out of Wikipedia. Sometimes the reasons for not wanting to be publicly listed in a publication like Who's Who are the same as for not wanting to be listed in Wikipedia. Because Who's Who is requested self-written entries, and the people it covers are a large part of its market. Wikipedia is third-party coverage for the benefit of third-party readers. That is, they're a completely different species of thing. It's not clear to me how your comparison of the two actually makes sense. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, David Gerard wrote: This is a rather broad and (as I've noted) hideously vague proposed solution to a very specific problem, viz. someone who is apparently well within notability guidelines wanting an article deleted because he doesn't have control of it, and is abusive towards anyone who tries to help. He's not well within notability guidelines, he falls under BLPs of marginal notability. Marginal notability BLPs are supposed to take the wishes of the subject into account with respect to deletion. Moreover, this BLP has been violating BLP policy for years. It doesn't matter how abusive he is off-Wiki; Wikipedia has failed here. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
