![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
This could be a very short essay, since the last sentance says it all. I would reduce this, maybe as a nutshell, to something simpler like:
"If a person gains additional coverage in reliable sources beyond the first event that made them famous, then WP:BLP1E no longer applies."
Insofar as the coverage of a person extends beyond the coverage of the event, then BLP1E is no longer valid. If someone is to become famous for a single event, and THEN, perhaps solely because of that event, a substantial, reliable biography is written about that person which cover that person's life outside of the event, then there is enough source material to write an article. WP:BLP1E only covers articles where the reliable sources outside of Wikipedia only cover the one event, and not the person. Even if someone becomes famous for what one may consider a single, trivial event, once the person has substantial reliable source information about their life outside of the event, then WP:BLP1E no longer applies, and this needs to be made clear. Not wanting someone to have reliable source information because they are only famous for something silly or trivial does not make that source information go away. Once reliable sources start covering the person, Wikipedia should as well. However, if the sources only cover the event, then we should do so as well. -- Jayron 32 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a good essay overall. Makes the points that need to be made. JoshuaZ ( talk) 03:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. That a person receives a namecheck in a larger article about a subject that involves that person does not automatically warrant a redlink, or a biographical article for that person. We should not present things in a way that the sources do not. If sources for biographical information only cover the person in the context of something else (such as an event or a court case), and are not wholly separable from sources for that something else, then there should not be a biographical article in Wikipedia separate from an article on the something else. Court cases, crimes, conflicts, and controversies, for examples, should be presented as unified articles that involve all sides, not as individual articles, pretending to be biographies, that present each of the sides separately.
I present the same pretty coloured box as given in this edit, which was one of the several edits that finally spurred action on this aspect of the BLP policy in the first place, for your perusal. See also the expansion of the point that is below the box. Uncle G ( talk) 11:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
If someone founds a major corporation, organization, etc. but has no particular notability outside that organization, should there be articles for both or should the founder simply redirect to the article about the organization they founded? Thanks! - Richfife ( talk) 18:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
This could be a very short essay, since the last sentance says it all. I would reduce this, maybe as a nutshell, to something simpler like:
"If a person gains additional coverage in reliable sources beyond the first event that made them famous, then WP:BLP1E no longer applies."
Insofar as the coverage of a person extends beyond the coverage of the event, then BLP1E is no longer valid. If someone is to become famous for a single event, and THEN, perhaps solely because of that event, a substantial, reliable biography is written about that person which cover that person's life outside of the event, then there is enough source material to write an article. WP:BLP1E only covers articles where the reliable sources outside of Wikipedia only cover the one event, and not the person. Even if someone becomes famous for what one may consider a single, trivial event, once the person has substantial reliable source information about their life outside of the event, then WP:BLP1E no longer applies, and this needs to be made clear. Not wanting someone to have reliable source information because they are only famous for something silly or trivial does not make that source information go away. Once reliable sources start covering the person, Wikipedia should as well. However, if the sources only cover the event, then we should do so as well. -- Jayron 32 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a good essay overall. Makes the points that need to be made. JoshuaZ ( talk) 03:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. That a person receives a namecheck in a larger article about a subject that involves that person does not automatically warrant a redlink, or a biographical article for that person. We should not present things in a way that the sources do not. If sources for biographical information only cover the person in the context of something else (such as an event or a court case), and are not wholly separable from sources for that something else, then there should not be a biographical article in Wikipedia separate from an article on the something else. Court cases, crimes, conflicts, and controversies, for examples, should be presented as unified articles that involve all sides, not as individual articles, pretending to be biographies, that present each of the sides separately.
I present the same pretty coloured box as given in this edit, which was one of the several edits that finally spurred action on this aspect of the BLP policy in the first place, for your perusal. See also the expansion of the point that is below the box. Uncle G ( talk) 11:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
If someone founds a major corporation, organization, etc. but has no particular notability outside that organization, should there be articles for both or should the founder simply redirect to the article about the organization they founded? Thanks! - Richfife ( talk) 18:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)