daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
>Let's face it: BLPs pose a problem. I want to suggest a few ideas that could
>resolve some of the issues we face.
>1. BLPs should be of sufficiently notable people that they appear in at
>least one external encyclopedic source, preferably print. This would include
>other encyclopedias, "Who's Who," or other biographical indices.
>2. In the event that the person attained fame because of sudden
>circumstances, they must be covered in at least three distinct newspapers that can be
>cited.
>
>
Is #2 supposed to be an alternative to #1? In other words, would an
article be justified by satisfying either one?
It sort of seems that way, but I don't know if that was intended or not.
For example, to take a case that was much debated in online venues other
than ours, I don't think Kathy Sierra or Chris Locke would meet #1, but
by now they certainly have tripped the wire on #2. Which goes to the
point of Wikipedia's oft-cited ability to respond quickly to topics of
current interest.
Whether that means we should have articles about them specifically, or
about the incident instead, is another issue, but I'm partial to
editorial judgments to merge problematic topics into more suitable
locations anyway.
--Michael Snow