On 15 February 2011 18:17, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/02/2011, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 15 February 2011 16:19, Ian Woollard
<ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, really. That page claims we only have 3% of
notable Poles. Are you
really, seriously, telling me we only have 3% of ALL notable
biographies???
Because that's what that page is assuming to calculate that 40 million.
It's possible. Our coverage of say British MPs starts to fall apart
pre-20th century.
But should each MP necessarily have his own biography?
It's
not impossible to calculate, you look at the counts from an
encyclopedias of famous people. And they very typically list historical
people as well as living people.
But they all hit dead tree limitations.
Then they're not capable of being reliably sourced.
Of course they are. It's just the sources are things other than
encyclopedias of famous people
Only if they're notable, and reliably sourced. I
don't think they're
notable enough to have their own article simply for having played.
In practice yes they are. Local newspapers tend to use their local
sports teams as filler.
So you're saying that you don't know; and
it's not a lot of use is it?
No I'm saying it wasn't possible to know. You were the one who claimed it was.
--
geni