Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:05:01 +0100, doc
<doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com>
wrote:
biography is by definition a record of someone
life, not an
incident. If the incident is encyclopedic and verifiable then we should
have an article on the incident, and the individuals involved in it, but
disallow a biography, since we have inadequate material for such.
If we don't have appropriate information for a biography, we shouldn't
have a biography. And if all the information relates to the one
incident, we should simply have an article on that.
Unsurprisingly, I agree with Doc on this. A biography based on a
single incident is almost certain to violate the "undue weight"
clause, and in many cases all you get is two articles on the same
subject.
To me it depends on the case and how much else is known about the
person. As Danny pointed out, there are some almost-unquestionable
cases of single-incident individuals who deserve biographies, like [[Lee
Harvey Oswald]]. If there's almost nothing known about the person
except the incident, then sure, redirect to an article about the
incident. In many case, though, there was a lot written after the fact
about the person's earlier life, their possible motivations, etc., that
makes it sensible to split off the biography to its own article---it
would make little sense to merge all the information in [[Lee Harvey
Oswald]] into [[John F. Kennedy assassination]].
-Mark