"Stan Shebs" <shebs(a)apple.com> schrieb:
Beware of genealogical publications though. My
mother's side of the
Mormon, and they have lots and lots of confirmable people and dates.
I also have at least two books that have been written of certain parts of my descent. I
used one of them as my source for a (Dutch) Wikipedia article (although for someone who
had a more important claim to fame than just having been born and died and gotten
a family in between).
So I think you do need some notion of importance. One
of the ideas I've
out is to count the people to whom the article subject matters in some
is in because it affects billions of people, the cat in the tree is out
it only affects the people on the street and the writer for the newspaper,
100 people tops.
I've been testing this mentally on various topics, and a number somewhere
between 500 and 5,000 seems plausible. I don't think it would make sense to
try and pick a number and impose it as a rule, but it makes a good sniff
for things that seem obscure. For instance, most consuls of ancient
very obscure today, but once upon a time they ruled millions, and are
I find this kind of rule little convincing. 'Affected' is much too
ill-defined. My mailman delivered post to hundreds of addresses today.
Leif Ericsson made a colony of a few dozen people in North America, and
fought with what may have been not more than a similar number of natives
there. So does this mean that my postman should be in, but Leif Ericson
should be out? Don't think so...