On 10-Sep-06, at 5:57 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 10/09/06, Amgine <amgine(a)saewyc.net> wrote:
> And, of course, [[WP:LIVING]] has pretty much
from its creation said
> what you're asking for here: facts in the article need to be
> relevant
> to the subject's notability.
No, actually.
To give an example of what I mean:
[[Tom DeLay]]
Then that's an example of an existing policy not being followed. I
don't see that adding more policy will make it be followed more. (c.f.
[[m:Instruction creep]].)
I suggest that one needs to convince people that (a) this policy is a
good idea (b) to do the hard work to make sure it's followed and
*reasonably easy* to follow. I think we have (a), we're working on
(b).
Well, that particular example was rather extreme, but so far as I can
tell the vast majority of [[Tom DeLay]] would still be accepted under
[[WP:LIVING]]. And with all due respect to Mr Wales's opinion,
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a library of full human
biographies (which might possibly be accepted under Wikibooks.)
Perhaps [[WP:LIVING]] could be altered to provide specific guidelines
for notability (such as the Florida Public Persons judicial test, as
previously suggested) as well as criteria for maximum information to
be included. No BLP needs to have blow-by-blow, week-by-week,
examinations of every possible legal or publicity scandal. Court
decisions, indictments, or other publicly verifiable (NOT newspaper
reporting) should certainly be includable, but "politician was
visited by lobbyist So-and-so who was later indicted for corruption"
is clearly innuendo and irrelevant.
I don't think you have clear enough guidelines to reach (b).
Amgine