On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:28:37 -0400, Jeff Raymond
It's closer to pregnancy than some fleeting thing.
Keep in mind -
Wikipedia notability has nothing to do with real world notability, so we
need to keep it, uh, in-universe. If we say "notability is x," we can't
then turn around and say that there's "borderline" - it doesn't,
shouldn't, and won't fly.
Yes it should. It's about the depth and breadth of coverage. If all
the coverage is in respect of the genitals incident, that's a merge to
an article on school sex scandals or some such. We absolutely must
not confuse transient notoriety for notability.
Any politician who stands for a major office will generate a lot of
coverage, their campaign team will make sure of it. After the
election, losing candidates are often never heard of again. We
commonly merge these losing candidates to a single article. (in my
view only reason we have articles on them in the first place is
because some people think we are Wikinews, but that's an aside).
Those politicians, last seen selling insurance in Mudhole Flats,
Idaho, may be offended that the sum total of human knowledge about
them, as judged by Wikipedia, is that they polled six votes in the
2006 run-offs for Mayor. Or they may not care. People whose supposed
notability rests on a single highly negative story (whether or not
they dunnit) which was a nine days' wonder in the press, they are
going to have a much bigger problem. What do we do with people
against whom a single source has a vendetta, but has failed to get
more than passing coverage of that vendetta? Like Zeleny's campaign
against Min Zhu?
Any case that does not make the books of notable cases is probably not
a notable case. Having an article on that case, masquerading as a
biography, based on the fact that i enjoyed passing notoriety, is a