Quoting RLS <evendell(a)gmail.com>om>:
joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:
Yes, but that's true for many articles and
isn't a reason not to have
an article . We need to accept the fact that for many people, even
fairly prominent people, we will not have much beyond basic
biographical sketches for the material that is tangential to what
makes them notable.
It's not a matter of "acceptance." See [[WP:BLP1E]]. If someone is
only notable because of one event, then there should be an article about
the event but not a biography that we can't source.
If they're notable for, say, significant contributions to one subject
area, that's different; but there should already be material we could
source from to create a BLP-compliant biography article, and it wouldn't
have been deleted in the first place.
--Darkwind
Up to a point. If someone almost but not quite met notability for one
thing and
then made a lot of noise about the matter and so got notability for the
noisemaking, as an editorial decision it would make more sense to simply make
an article under the person's title. Furthermore, in certain cases, a
person is
notable for a single event, but the notability is so high that we keep them
anyways. To use an extreme example, we have an article on [[John Wilkes
Booth]]
and a separate article on [[Abraham Lincoln assassination]]. Even if
Booth were
alive today we wouldn't merge his article with the main assassination article.