Toby Bartels wrote:
That explains why the autobiographies are a problem
(if you accept mav's premise that we need a filter),
but it doesn't explain why they are more unverifiable.
Filters inherently require a subjective decision. They work better when
opinions on something fall into a narrow range. I think that the range
of attitudes about what should be kept is too wide to make filters workable.
Potentially, a Wikipedia autobiography that attracted
attention
(say, on its talk page) that led to verifiable sources
could be acceptable -- and such articles can be salvaged
by following up the sources mentioned on the talk page.
But one can't ''start'' with a Wikipedia autobiography
and just hope that people will place sources in the talk page;
we need to have something verifiable to begin with.
Thus a Wikipedia autobiography, when there is no other material,
is not verifiable.
The first line of approach on any of these biographic articles should be
based on attempts to contact the writer. Deletion should not be
considered until a serious effort has been made in that direction.
Ec