zero 0000 wrote:
From: Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net
Actually I think this is a good litmus test for whether an individual is encyclopaedically notable. If there are no sources for basic biographical data other than the individual themselves, in other words if there has never been a reputably published biography or profile, then I don't believe we can have an article.
This would include minor actors and exclude famous scientists. Even scientists who have a large number of scientific achievements are rarely the subjects of published biographies. Being famous enough to get a mention in newspapers doesn't help either, since such articles rarely provide information like place of birth.
Conference and conventions publish biographical data, I know the source is generally the person, but they should be reputable as sources. Magazines like New Scientist often profile scientists too, although my subscription lapsed a few years back.