On 21/12/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
WP:BLP1E
There is no problem with covering the situation in appropriate places, but normal consensus about BLP's is that we don't have articles about people who have had some new coverage only due to a single negative event. It may seem like Wikipedia is the center of the universe, but it actually isn't. :)
Random sample found by searching in google for "coo scandal": http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/7813032
A brief search of Wikipedia shows that in this case of a fraud alleged by the SEC to have involved $8.2 million profit to the CFO and COO of this company, we have nothing on either person, nor on the company, nor on the scandal.
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13555_1-9805001-34.html
This story talks about the same event as a $200 million fraud. The CEO, about whom we do not have an article, is charged.
I am not arguing that we should or should not have an article on this other case (but please let's not have my use of this example trigger an idiotic war about it!).
I am just arguing that there is absolutely no way in hell we would have an article in the case of Carolyn Doran, were it not for Wikipedia navel-gazing. There was no fraud (that we know of), nothing bad happened to us (that we know of), it is just an embarassment and for this poor woman, her rather sad life story is now in the Associated Press. But this whole thing is still amply covered by BLP1E and non-Wikipedia precedent and tradition.
I don't see how this falls under BLP1E, since it doesn't boil down to a single event in any way that I can see. That policy isn't critical to your point, though, so you're still absolutely correct in your conclusions.