[WikiEN-l] Looking for thoughts on statistics

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
<martijnhoekstra at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 30 March 2010 18:16, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> If you want a higher level, 90% of the present members of the US
>>>> National Academy of Engineering do not have articles.
>>>>
>>>> "More than one thing" seems a weird standard, in my opinion.
>>>
>>> To be expected it was invented by the BLP mob. See [[Wikipedia:BLP1E]].
>>
>> To be fair, that refers to (or should refer to) a chronologically
>> constrained (i.e. brief) event that propels someone to passing fame in
>> a newspaper or online, not to a career where someone is notable for
>> only one thing.
>
> I have always had a bit of a problem with blp1e. It is a sort of blp
> thing combined with wp:notnews. I am generally off the opinion that if
> the specific event is notable enough to warrant an article, and the
> specific event is centered solely around that person, I believe the
> article should be on that person, focusing on that event. Say, a
> person wins some sort of trophy, lets call him John Doe, and the
> trophy the awesome trophy. And say there is a lot of media attention
> that John wins the trophy, enough to say there is more then passing
> coverage, enough for [[WP:N]] in general. Should we have an article
> [[John Doe winning the awesome trophy in 2010]]? Or should we just
> have one on [[John Doe]]?

Didn't that evolve from the "murdered people" standard, where instead
of having an article on a person who was murdered, you have an article
on the crime? Not that such a standard was completely adopted, I don't
think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Murders

That is what I mean, though a lot of that is tabloid-ish journalism.

Carcharoth