Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/19/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
A useful heuristic is to take notability down to
the detail level,
i.e. is this fact really notable? The example in one of the many
versions of WP:LIVING was a minorly notable scientist who happens to
have had a messy divorce. Unless the messiness was itself notable,
it's not likely to make it a better article for the reader.
Notability at the fact level is even harder to determine than
notability at the subject level. Ask a republican whether Bush's
alleged administrative adventures in the National Guard were
"notable". Ask a Democrat the same.
Here's a question: would a judge allow it to be raised in court?
I agree with your basic point, but what would you do
in the case of a
mathematician of whom we have 200 words on his career and
publications, and 200 words on him getting sacked for molesting a
student? We might easily find 30 news stories on the latter, and very
few news stories on the rest of his career. Applying our basic "if
it's verifiable, it's includable" guideline might distort the overall
impression we give...
It comes down to a question of balance. See above.
--
Alphax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP