Wikipedia talk:What is one event

Length
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 Insofar as the coverage of a person extends beyond the coverage of the event, then BLP1E is no longer valid.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)
 * Heh. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'd rather it actually explained a bit more, with examples, how that reasoning had been upheld in AfD discussions.  I'd eventually like to see this linked from WP:OUTCOMES as well, to save some drama by explaining that while a nom on such a basis may attract a sizeable minority opinion, consensus has strongly tended to go the other way. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the problem is that people use WP:BLP1E as shorthand for "I don't WANT this person to be famous..." rather than what it is really intended for, which is "This person has no coverage about their life in reliable sources". Either a person has a reliable biography we can work from, or they do not.  BLP1E can become a hinderance to realizing that THAT is the core issue.  Either the source material exists, or it does not, and no amount of Wikiacronymization can change that.  -- Jayron  32  03:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and there is probably no way to entirely eliminate such discussions... Nor would I necessarily even try. OUTCOMES-like "here's what we do in this situation" documents do tend to be nice to point to so you don't have to rehash salient points every time, and each time they're endorsed, they gain power of consensus, much like WP:HAMMER. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 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)

Fruits

 * I disagree with the essay because I disagree with the premise that it is based on. I do think that there is a "fruit of a poisonous tree" principle that should apply. What everyone fails to acknowledge is that notability and "in the news" aren't necessarily the same thing. The news has to fill pages or air time with something and nothing tends to attract the publics attention like the crazy, the weird or the just plain odd. Taitz is a good example. Although she's been to more than one event under the strict definition, all the events are the same thing....her pushing her birther conspiracy theory. Just because she does the same thing over and over doesn't really remove it from the fact that it is one event and a bunch of repeats. Or some guy committing suicide on a webcam. Maybe if he wins the Darwin Award he deserves...but until then, it's one even regardless of how many newspapers report on his stupidity. I think WP:BLP1E should be more strictly applied rather than gutted, which is what this essay seems to do. I also take offense at the statement that using BLP1E is really just a "I don't want this person to be famous". It's recognition that popularity, which fades, is not the same as notability, which is not temporary. Too often in these AfD's, I see people looking at the short view. They're looking at today and not really thinking that this persons alleged notability really will fade fast, indicating that they really weren't notable in the first place. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Popularity and notability may not be the same things, but notability due to continuing coverage of a single issue is still notability. Moreover, a brief spike in popularity can make someone notable if it leads to substantial enough coverage. If the point of BLP1E is to prevent invasion of privacy or invasive coverage then there's no good reason that BLP1E should be anything like what you seem to want. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See, I think that is a dangerous train of thought. For example, let's say I am a non-notable person, just an average guy. Say I help an old lady who is getting mugged by doing something unusual, like pelting the guy with oranges. Now the local paper will probably cover that. Then let's say that AP puts it on the wire services. It's a safe bet that some papers across the US will print it just because it is unusual. Maybe even some papers in the UK. Then say at next month's city council meeting, they vote to give me the key to the city and declare next Thursday to be "Niteshift day" in the city. Now I've been covered in say 50 papers. Does that make me notable? No, I say it doesn't. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Niteshift, I hear your preference, and I absolutely want you to contribute here. Can you help me find examples where BLP1E has been applied in the manner you prefer?  The point of this essay isn't to "gut" BLP1E, but really to describe how it's already been applied.  I fully acknowledge that I'm basing my view and this essay on what I've seen happen.  If I'm missing out on another side of this, please add it to the essay! Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You and I have agreed and disagreed before. I appreciate your openmindedness. I think this AfD is a good example of BLP1E being applied . In this case, Scott Janke was the town manager of a small beach city of 6,500. As the manager, he was barely ever mentioned, even in local papers (3 gnews hits in the preceeding 3 months, all local papers). Usually his mentions was either in the context of a city council meeting or that he attended some local event. Mostly what I'd call trivial mentions by local media. Then one day it was found that his wife was a performer on some pornographic websites. Janke was fired because they felt it gave the town the wrong image. His contract had a clause that he could be fired for no cause. The firing was covered in the media locally and, because of the porn angle, it was picked up across the US (even a couple of papers in the UK I think). In reality, he hadn't actually done anything himself but be fired. (And his wife didn't meet WP:PORNBIO either) After a couple of days, even the local media stopped mentioning it. The story broke around July 22, 2009. For August, there are zero gnews hit on his name. Less than a month and off the radar. I think this is a classic example of BLP1E being applied absolutely properly. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Super; I'll add that to the article tonight, if someone hasn't (you?) included it before then--even though this is still in my userspace, please feel free to collaborate on it here as if it were already in Wikipedia space. Jclemens (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added that one. Feel free to tweak the wording, or add other instances of BLP1E issues.  I am completely agreed that that AfD (in which I did not participate) was an ideal and proper application of BLP1E. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it just a little to make the fact that he was barely heard of before the one event more evident. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Please integrate other examples as you see them or as they come to mind. Jclemens (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is remembering them. I've seen it used a lot of times that I believe was proper, but I am trying to remember cases that were very clear cut, like the Janke one. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, add 'em as you remember them or as you see new ones in the future--my encouragement to everyone who cares to contribute. Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That pretty coloured box again
'''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)

Founders of organizations
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)
 * I would think it would depend on the extent to which the founder is covered in independent RS'es. I wouldn't argue that Charles Manson or Sun Myung Moon are non-notable, as there exist plenty of RS non-trivial mentions of both of them.  Some guy who ONLY founds a non-notable organization is clearly non-notable.  The third option, when a possibly NN person founds a notable organization, would be the middle-of-the-road case, where it might make sense to redirect or to have a separate article, depending on the individual's notability.  WP:BAND gives precedent for otherwise NN musicians who are part of only one notable band being redirected to the group rather than having their own page. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)