2009/3/4 Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > As far as granting significant weight to the wishes of a subject? Subject > > request has consistently been rejected as a basis for deleting an > article, > > and many comments in the deletion discussions I've read have even > rejected > > lending weight to these requests in any way. >
I understand & appreciate the desire to proceed solely on the basis of 'what makes a good encyclopedia,' without incorporating any considerations outside that. Seriously, that makes a lot of sense to me. But having said that, there doesn't seem to be a really clear consensus on 'what makes a good encyclopedia' when it comes to BLPs - witness for example, all the discussions about what constitutes notability. Since no clear consensus has emerged, and nobody seems to be arguing that retaining biographies of marginally-notable living people is an obvious and important good thing to do ... then why _not_ shift the bias towards deleting the marginally notable upon request? I don't think that would lead to hagiographies Wikipedia-wide. You could just as easily argue it would improve quality by eliminating some mediocre articles that nobody cares about much .. while also, as a lucky side effect, reducing unhappiness among the subjects of those articles. Perhaps our stance could shift to _thanking_ subjects of bad BLPs for helping to police quality :-) I'm sorry - the quote is default to *keep* if the article is not a > marginally notable BLP - which, through negatives, means default to delete > for marginally notable BLPs. I get it now, thank you :-) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
