On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
<martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Carcharoth
<carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, geni
<geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 March 2010 18:16, David Goodman
<dgoodmanny(a)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