Dan Grey wrote:
What is this "standard of notability" anyway? I prefer Jimbo's guide to what should and should not be in: if the information is verifiable (ie it's been published somewhere, and most people who are going to interested in it can access it), and it's not original research, it deserves a place.
Just to be clear, I'm not 100% sure this is my position. :-)
My position most certainly is that, *fortunately*, a lot of really difficult issues *are* resolved by verifiability and no original research. Those two rules knock out a huge swath of certifiable nonsense without even breaking a sweat.
There is now a magazine article (Florida Trend) which gives my mother's name, and tells about the school which she founded, where I attended as a child. This information is now verifiable (it is in a magazine) and the original research was done by a professional journalist (plus I can personally vouch for it being true, for whatever that may be worth).
Even so, I do not think we should have an article about my mother. She's a dear sweet wonderful person, to be sure, but not encyclopedic.
This is a case where I'm going to go with Kat Walsh (Mindspillage) and say that I'm a "merge-ist". Does the tidbit about my mom's school deserve a separate article? Absolutely not. Does it belong somewhere in the encyclopedia? Sure. Where? In the article about me.
--Jimbo