[WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review

[Trebor Rowntree]

On 5/24/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Monica's whole life is notable - there are basted biographies on her.
> There may be 'the incident' but the incident has made her whole life a
> notable, sources and verifiable story. We can write a biography. The
> same is true for the Olympic medal winner - notable only for winning
> medals, but because of that, a lot of biographical details that are
> otherwise notable, are already recorded in good sources.
>
> But if the notability refers only to the incident and nothing else has
> really been recorded by good sources - then all we can write about is
> the incident - then we can't write a biography.
>
> A good thing to ask yourself is: if this person died tomorrow, would any
> newspaper, or important publication in the subject area, print an
> obituary. If the answer is 'No - no chance' then we probably should not
> have a biography.


Yeah, alright, but then this isn't as black-and-white as some people seem to
think it is. [[Crystal Gail Mangum]] did have other details (like her GPA),
but in that case the right thing seemed to be to redirect to the incident.
So up to a certain level of "fame" for one incident, we want to include only
things related to that incident (and possibly redirect the biography to it);
once a person passes that level, we want to include as much background
information as possible to try to balance the biography. But where we put
the level is a subjective decision.