On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:48:44 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
This sounds sensible. Perhaps what we need some where
is a list of what
would be "standard" information in a biographical article. Essentially
we would be looking at the kind of boring data that would be found in a
"Who's Who" that chose to include the individual: date and place of
birth and marriage, where they went to school, etc. Any of ths stuff
could still be disputed, put it would be presumed valid unless that happens.
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.
Although this would make most porn bios impossible, of course, since
for the vast majority of those we have no reliable information other
than their skin colour and their appearance in a number of (usually
ultra low budget) films.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG