[WikiEN-l] Looking for thoughts on statistics

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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


Ugh, murders, the kind of articles where you get stuck trying to
explain that "he left behind a loving wife and to beautiful children"
should not be in the article, even if you have 5 refs that say his
wive loved him, 8 that say she was left behind, and 15 (each kid) that
say the kids were pretty.