Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:05:01 +0100, doc doc.wikipedia@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