On 7/1/07, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I do not understand this overindulgence with the
details. The point is Anna
Nicole Smith was given more coverage than it was worth by FAR.
Depends on how you're measuring "worth", I'd say.
That is why
the amount of News coverage is not parallel with notability. They may be
parallel but that is not the rule.
I don't think the concept of "notability" fits well on a sliding
scale, and to the limited extent it does, yes, amount of news coverage
doesn't parallel it.
I more think in terms of "notable enough" or "not notable enough",
something which has received ongoing news coverage for an extended
period of time generally falls under "notable enough".
I would appreciate if you focused on the
"spirit" of the rationale rather
than every minor detail. Examples I use are merely for illustration and not
intended to be encyclopedic. :P
Sorry. The example you gave just seemed to be so patently untrue. At
first I ignored the example, and someone else pointed out that it was
probably false, then you repeated it, and I mentioned that it seemed
false, and then you repeated it again and we got into this discussion.