Talk:Mark Phillips/Archive 1

Notability
I was surprised to see this article blanked and redirected to the Mark Phillips article without discussion by User:Charles, but thought that it had some merit. I'm not surprised to see that it has been reverted by User:UpDown. To kick the discussion off, assuming of course that anyone wants to discuss this ;-), I think that the pertinent guidelines are contained in Notability and I seem to recall that there is some guideline about people famous for only one event, not qualifying, but I can't a reference atm. Perhaps it's in What Wikipedia is not ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 15:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some people like to redirect such articles, others redirect them because of a number of factors, maybe being absolute inclusionists (who knows, I don't). Sorry it took my so long to pop by, I assumed it was a completely non-controversial move on my part but I have had issues that relate to why articles like this are reverted. Felicity is wholly non-notable outside of the context of her father, she is notable because of her conception only basically the implications of its discovery and relation to her father and the Princess Royal. What say you on redirecting the article now? I am sure people are watching this (they always are) and they will come by and weigh in. Charles 05:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. It would be helpful if you posted the relevent WP policy/guideline, otherwise it just looks as if you are just another person spouting a personal opinion.


 * This appears to be the relevent guideline I was referring to -

=== Articles about people notable only for one event ===

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.


 * Biographies of living persons


 * Consequently I support merge into Mark_Phillips which is in itself unclear and needs work. BTW the procedure for contested merging is Merge -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 09:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am starting a merger proposal as we speak. Charles 14:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done! Charles 14:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)