On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 March 2010 18:16, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
If you want a higher level, 90% of the present members of the US National Academy of Engineering do not have articles.
"More than one thing" seems a weird standard, in my opinion.
To be expected it was invented by the BLP mob. See [[Wikipedia:BLP1E]].
To be fair, that refers to (or should refer to) a chronologically constrained (i.e. brief) event that propels someone to passing fame in a newspaper or online, not to a career where someone is notable for only one thing.
I have always had a bit of a problem with blp1e. It is a sort of blp thing combined with wp:notnews. I am generally off the opinion that if the specific event is notable enough to warrant an article, and the specific event is centered solely around that person, I believe the article should be on that person, focusing on that event. Say, a person wins some sort of trophy, lets call him John Doe, and the trophy the awesome trophy. And say there is a lot of media attention that John wins the trophy, enough to say there is more then passing coverage, enough for [[WP:N]] in general. Should we have an article [[John Doe winning the awesome trophy in 2010]]? Or should we just have one on [[John Doe]]?
Didn't that evolve from the "murdered people" standard, where instead of having an article on a person who was murdered, you have an article on the crime? Not that such a standard was completely adopted, I don't think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Murders
That is what I mean, though a lot of that is tabloid-ish journalism.
Carcharoth