Risker wrote:
> On 29/04/2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> That's not a bad biography, it's childish vandalism
that happened to
>> be missed. Stable versions should help with that in
the not too
>> distant future. I don't really see how such
articles harm the subject
>> - they're obviously vandalised and any reasonable
reader will
>> disregard them (perhaps we should try and cater to
unreasonable
>> readers, but I'm not sure we realistically can).
>>
> No, it's a bad biography. It's exactly the type of
biography we don't need.
> This guy is president of a single local of a union.
That is the only thing
> that makes him the least bit notable; and his name is
only in the news right
> now because his local is in labour negotiations. This
time next month,
> nobody will be interested in him -except of course for
the same people who
> have been trashing him thus far.
>
To say that the president of a large local union is only
marginally
notable is a wilfully deceptive POV. It's exactly the kind
of behaviour
that creates such a high degree of anxiety around deletion
processes.
Bad biography because of childish vandalism, and bad
biography because a
personal POV that would suppress biographies of certain
classes of
people such as union leaders are two entirely different
criteria.
> These biographies of people with very marginal
notability are magnets for
> vandalism. It's a waste of good editor time to expect
people to monitor them
> and clean up vandalism in them; yet, failing to
actively monitor them (or
> messing up when we actually do look at them) leads to
the article Jimmy
> mentions at the beginning.
Being a vandal magnet is an extremely weak criterion for
deleting an
article. It punishes someone's efforts, not on the basis of
what is
done, but on a totally speculative basis of what others
might do.
Ec
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
