michael west wrote:
On 27/06/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
>David Gerard wrote:
>
>
>>On 27/06/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is a substantial difference between "Who's Who", the
original
>>>general publication, and "Who's Who ---", the genre of
publications.
>>>The original takes "notability" (with a few odd caveats) as its
basic
>>>threshold of entry; the various "Who's Who in X" are not nearly
as
>>>discriminating, and will often take anyone willing to pay.
>>>Yes, it's confusing, but there you go. I believe this all has its
>>>roots in a *really complex* transatlantic trademark dispute...
>>>
>>>
>>Being in "Who's Who" (the original) is prima facie evidence this is
a
>>generally notable person and warrants an article. However, the Who's
>>Who text itself is pretty much written by the subject. An appropriate
>>phrasing would be something like "In his Who's Who entry, X claims
>>
>>
>At least a person who has paid to have his name in there is not likely
>to complain about that information being used in a Wikipedia article.
>
I think you've gone far off topic and I don't think that vanity
publications have a place in Wikipedia. I used it as an example of simple
biographical details. But would never use it to pad out a badly organised
BLP that is just going to include what X has for breakfast.
So who's saying that we should report what anybody had for breakfast?
Who determines which publication is a vanity publication? Who defines
"padding out?
Ec