From: Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net>
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:48:44 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
This sounds sensible. Perhaps what we need some
where is a list of
what
would be "standard" information in a
biographical article.
Essentially
we would be looking at the kind of boring data
that would be found
in a
"Who's Who" that chose to include
the individual: date and place of
birth and marriage, where they went to school, etc. Any of ths
stuff
could still be disputed, put it would be presumed
valid unless that
happens.
Actually I think this is a good litmus test for whether an individual
is encyclopaedically notable. If there are no sources for basic
biographical data other than the individual themselves, in other
words
if there has never been a reputably published biography or profile,
then I don't believe we can have an article.
This would include minor actors and exclude famous scientists.
Even scientists who have a large number of scientific achievements
are rarely the subjects of published biographies. Being famous
enough to get a mention in newspapers doesn't help either, since
such articles rarely provide information like place of birth.
Zero.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.