I have an issue with the section Renown . I can't agree because the renown of an individual, if extensively reported and know in the media or other books, would normally be a reason to justify a separate article on that individual. People will read or hear about a criminal somewhere and then go to wikipedia to see who he actually is or for some background information, so a biographical article would be appropriate in my opinion. Also some articles, like the Curtis Allgier article, show that sometimes a standalone biography article works better for a criminal of some 'renown' than one on the crime or the event. Also I think "renown of an individual" and "very high renown" are almost the same terms and somewhat impossible to separate given that the dictionary meaning of 'renown' is "widespread and high repute; fame". For example Seung-Hui Cho is probably less well know or have less 'renown' than Lyle Menendez although the former case is more recent.
So in my opinion the section should be varied to say something like "Renown": a person who is widely know may meet the standards for a spin off article according to the section "Criteria for spinning-out" Wombat24 ( talk) 00:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Another problem I see is with the phrase "focusing primarily on their notable criminal activity" because that may not always be possible because sometime people are know for their entire life or their biography covers their entire lifespan and there is more information available of their pre-crime days than their 'notable criminal activity'. So I don't believe that "focusing primarily on their notable criminal activity" should be included here, ie end the line at "that person". Biographical articles should be biographical. Wombat24 ( talk) 00:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
<winks>-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 23:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I have an issue with the section Renown . I can't agree because the renown of an individual, if extensively reported and know in the media or other books, would normally be a reason to justify a separate article on that individual. People will read or hear about a criminal somewhere and then go to wikipedia to see who he actually is or for some background information, so a biographical article would be appropriate in my opinion. Also some articles, like the Curtis Allgier article, show that sometimes a standalone biography article works better for a criminal of some 'renown' than one on the crime or the event. Also I think "renown of an individual" and "very high renown" are almost the same terms and somewhat impossible to separate given that the dictionary meaning of 'renown' is "widespread and high repute; fame". For example Seung-Hui Cho is probably less well know or have less 'renown' than Lyle Menendez although the former case is more recent.
So in my opinion the section should be varied to say something like "Renown": a person who is widely know may meet the standards for a spin off article according to the section "Criteria for spinning-out" Wombat24 ( talk) 00:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Another problem I see is with the phrase "focusing primarily on their notable criminal activity" because that may not always be possible because sometime people are know for their entire life or their biography covers their entire lifespan and there is more information available of their pre-crime days than their 'notable criminal activity'. So I don't believe that "focusing primarily on their notable criminal activity" should be included here, ie end the line at "that person". Biographical articles should be biographical. Wombat24 ( talk) 00:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
<winks>-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 23:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)