I thought it would be interesting to list some of the reasons why the Sam Blacketer fiasco must be consigned to the memory hole:

We know the truth, so the reliable sources must be wrong.
Jayen466
Hans Adler
TheGrappler
Ragesoss
Clayoquot
Cailil
Jennavecia
Disembrangler
Ottava Rima
Runningonbrains
Smartse
Skomorokh
Tony fox
Tom Harrison
Anirishwoman
dave souza
Guest9999
Mr.Z-man
SarekOfVulcan

Additions and corrections welcome.

What kind of "encyclopedia" has articles on irrelevant crap like this?

You WPers should be ashamed that this thing is even being considered as a keep.

PS: Shouldn't this be merged with the Sam Blacketer thread?

Heh. Add Kato to the list of proponents of "censorship."

Wikipedians very often have no sense of proportion when it comes to topics dear to their heart.

I agree it should be deleted and it will. Though I think the responses on the AFD may be different if DB was a Tory councillor

One of the biggest problems with BLPs is the huge detail given to flash-in-the-pan people noteworthy for one thing and one thing only; combine that with some editors' love for self-references to Wikipedia itself, and you get thousands upon thousands of words written on topics like the "Essjay controversy," Boothroyd, details of virtually every mention of Wikipedia on Colbert's show, etc.

Given that the whole Boothroyd thing was mentioned in the media, it probably merits a mention in the article on Wikipedia or criticism thereof. But a biography is just silly, if Wikipedia has any aspirations of being "encyclopedic."

Absolutely. It's in important story to the Wikipedia Review, because it's about Wikipedia. Nobody else in the rest of the world, with the possible exception of a couple of Boothroyd's friends, could care less. If someone got fired from Britannica for an undisclosed COI, it got a brief mention in The Register and someone wrote an article about him on that basis, Wikipedia would delete it without a second thought and I'm sure there wouldn't be all these people bleating about "censorship". I could make a far better case for a biographical article on Greg Kohs, who has been discussed in the mainstream press. (Which Boothroyd hasn't, unless the Daily Mail has somehow become a reliable source.)

Surely the Daily Mail deserves the moniker "mainstream press"?

"Mainly a stream of piss" would be more apt.

Which in itself shows it is mainstream!

Personally, I'd say most of the people arguing for the existence of this article, other than maybe JoshuaZ (who simply wants all BLP articles kept no matter what), are doing so because they oppose the UK Labour Party, not because they care one way or the other about Wikipedia, its value as a reference, or its so-called "notability requirements."

These articles are just another fun way to get their digs in, is all. Maybe they figure they can link to it at some future date when there's an election coming up and they want to use their various blogs and such to embarrass the Labour folks, but I suspect even most of the people arguing to keep these articles now will have forgotten the whole thing within a month or two. You're correct in that us WR types will remember it, but IMO even many of us here think it's just more of the same, and not worth a special article.

If I'm stating the obvious again, sorry...

Actually at least the Daily Mail is honest about its biases not like some papers.

At least the BNP are honest about their biases not like some political parties.

Yes, wear the badge of bigotry with pride, 'tis a virtue you know.

Yes Minister – from which that's a quote – is almost 30 years old now. A more accurate description for the ultra-right nationalism of the modern-day Daily Mail would be "Read by people who think the country has been overrun by people from other countries". (Anyone remember "Asylum seekers eat our swans"?)

On no they arent.

Oh, the Daily Mail is no more ultra-right than the majority of UK MPs!

And on the subject of the BNP, in the grand scheme of things, with all of their policies taken into account, they are more accurately described as ultra-left, but the rabid socialists would never admit that.



Which was The Sun:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/dec/1...ssandpublishing

Although who am I to know the highest-selling English language newspaper in the world?

Its possible to reject the hypocrisy of the Guardian and the Independent without being a Fascist, no?


Actually its older than Yes Minister which recycled loads of old jokes (remember CMG = Call Me God?)

Yep, the Daily Mail isn't ultra right its raison d'etre is to engender feelings of outrage and generally raise the blood pressure of its Home Counties readership.

You've got to be kidding.

I dare you to find a single press article about me that mentions where or when I was born, where I attended college or grad school, the year in which I married, the composition of my family, or where I've been employed.

Unless you're talking about my namesake, the film producer and director?

Interesting that I've often discussed such a standard for BLPs (can we source the date or place of birth or the date or place of college/career?), but it has been rather soundly rejected. Oh well.

Thats not going to stop BLP creators. Theyd just put in what they can. And once notability is established the article can of course use other reliable sources such as birth records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alan_Coren

That's actually 'We can actually be arsed to read the page history, so we can see that the "reliable sources" aren't.'

You just typoed it -- after all, the keys are right next to each other...

In the real world thats the correct way to do things of course. Unfortunately it violates Wikidiot rules so is invalid by their (lack of) logic.