Getting back to the subject, kinda sorta:
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sun 9th January 2011, 1:37pm)
Okay, question then. You guys are saying that at least a chapter, if not a book, written by an academic about a person is what is necessary to make them notable? Well, it's quite clear that most Presidents of the US are notable then...
This appears to be a common misconception. Those of us who are advocating tighter controls on what's allowed in BLP articles, and/or an opt-out policy, are not trying to
define notability at all - this is a Wikipedian linguistic construct, an idiomatic term, a canard if you will.
People often forget that Wikipedia-style "notability standards" are designed to
keep people out, not prevent people from leaving once they're in. I should really speak only for myself, but I've always maintained that Wikipedia could actually lower notability standards if they wanted to, without a peep from people like myself, as long as they were willing to give article subjects some degree of personal control - particularly in cases where they can make a legitimate case that they're being persecuted (fairly or, especially, unfairly) by Wikipedians.
Generally speaking, though, Wikipedians don't want lower "notability standards," they want to ensure that the people they choose to write about aren't allowed to do anything about it, or
against them - in particular, spoil their hour or two of hard work (and don't forget those new-article stats) by asking for the articles about them to be deleted.
What I call the "traditional-publication standard" for exemption from a future opt-out policy is a practical compromise, an effort to be reasonable in the face of intractable irresponsibility, immaturity, and selfishness. It has very little to do with whether or not a person actually is, in fact, "notable" - a subjective concept if ever there was one. It makes sense because nearly all famous people have books (or portions of books) written about them, and books can't simply be deleted if it turns out they're wrong.
Mr. Taiwopanfob (for example) believes that all BLPs about people who don't meet the traditional-publication standard should be deleted immediately, and personally I would support that idea 100 percent. But this is nevertheless an extreme view. The majority of people with BLPs don't seem to mind the fact that potentially damaging falsehoods could be inserted into them at any time, because for most people the risk of this is fairly low. But I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that even they would greatly appreciate being allowed to opt out if something happening on Wikipedia made that the only tolerable course of action.