Wikipedia talk:Persons known for one higher profile event

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Talk page discussion here.

Wikipedia:Persons known for one higher profile event

Almost weekly, there are AFDs about a person known for only one event but that event receives much coverage. The RS and BLP1E rules conflict. Clearer direction as to what should be included is discussed.

RFC start

WP:BLP1E is a policy. However, it is very short and general. It refers to WP:1E which is a guideline.

WP:N and WP:RS are guidelines.

The policy is clear only in the rare case of a person, known for one event that changes history. John Hinckley is cited.

There are too many cases of the latest person in the news to be covered. There are many, many AFDs on this, almost weekly or fortnightly.

Should the two opposing ideals be reconciled with something new, like this page? Perhaps the magnitude of the event should be given weight. Assassination of a head of state is one of great magnitude. Attempted assassination, where others get shot and severely injured, as in the case of the Hinckley attempt, appears to warrant an article. How less significant should we get? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to suggest the language of the proposed guideline or essay. However, here are some real life people to consider:

Balloon boy in Colorado, USA
Flight attendant (steward) that got mad and slid down the airplane's chute
The Russian spies that were caught in the USA and exchanged for 4 Russians. Anna Chapman? How about Juan Lazaro?
Natascha Kampusch, who escaped from her father's dungeon in Austria.
Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine that the two policies are not in perfect alignment with one another, and that is a flawed assumption to think that if they were reconciled AFD would become less contentious. When two policies seem to contradict one another a discussion can determine which of the community prefers to follow in that particular case. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which the community prefers violates WP:Similar treatment is okay. There should be a discussion over how to deal with this and if there is a way to decide before the event occurs. Otherwise there is more bias and more drama. I am neutral in this as far as trying to keep or delete stuff. I only want more guidance. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if we could assign events a score and anything over a score of 39 gets an article. I don't know what would constitute a point, though. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "similar treatment" thing is an essay, which you well know since you wrote it. It can't be "violated" as it is just your opinion. I don't even know what to say to your proposed "point system." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The similar treatment page is very uncontroversial. Take the reverse, would anybody in their right mind oppose fair treatment? As far as points, that what we all do. We love ice cream, we hate obesity. So we assign points subconscieously. As far as notability, we could say that it strongly meets lasting effect and weakly meets international coverage. So a point system just makes it more quantifiable. I am merely standing what should be obvious, but is not! Oh, I thought your name is Beetlebrox, no Beeble.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Similar treatment is okay has three experienced users stating that they don't think it is in accord with policy or consensus, so your claim that it is "uncontroversial" does not hold water. And the more you talk about this point system of yours the less sense it makes. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an example situation, see discussion on Talk:Naveen Jain#Notability. I have mixed feelings about this kind of situation. ...comments? ~BF izz 18:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E versus N and RS

It's true these guidelines and 1E are an issue. Personally I believe WP:BLP1E should be downgraded to a guideline. A person who makes the front page of numerous international press e.g Susan Boyle, is notable and encyclopedic even from the initial one event. IMHO Afd results tend to go with demographics. i.e. a one off event in the US is kept as being notable while elsewhere it would be deleted as a one time event. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's even worse is that the BLP1E policy refers to a guideline that has some conflicts with it. Whoever wrote this should be dis-barred if they are a lawyer. In Wikipedia, there should be a professional reviewer or things that conflict should be subject to a non-conflict conference or discussion where things are made to stop conflicting. I am totally neutral on this. I could present the conflicting rules and say we either have it one way or another and let others choose which. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the definition of one event Wikipedia:WI1E, is an essay. This itself is also a source of much disagreement, see Paul Yarrow, a situation which some (myself included) consider to be 100+ mini events, but whatever your view it's clearly not solid ground upon which to base the BLP1E policy. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an example AFD see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping out these 15-minutes-of-fame articles is a good idea, otherwise everyone who generated a news headline would get an written article about them. I make no apologies for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Yarrow. Susan Boyle had more than her 15 minutes so isn't just known for one event. Note that the Salahis no longer have biographies, so your argument isn't watertight. Fences&Windows 23:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Boyle had more 'events' now, but at the time of the linked AFD, it was a one event situation. Hence it's a good example. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if a person is known for one event only, an article is ok if there is lots of coverage?

So, what is the consensus? Should it be that the event get covered. Then the person also gets covered if, despite being known for only one event, the event is very significant?

So, a one event person gets covered if the event is very large and the event gets covered if it is notable? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Arrest of Bradley Manning"

I recently encountered such an issue at "Arrest of Bradley Manning". Citing the BLP1E policy, the idea was to cover the event (his arrest) rather than the person. I think this is ludicrous. We don't protect living persons by limiting articles to only a negative event in their lives. I don't think an article about Bradley Manning is less so because you put "Arrest of" in front of it.

A tangentially relevant point from that article concerns media articles saying that he's gay, which is alleged as motive for the disclosure. Personally I am overly reminded of the USS Iowa turret explosion and don't find this to be in any way a "negative" piece of information; to the contrary it makes me think that it is far more plausible that Manning is innocent than that the military allowed a quite openly gay soldier demoted for fighting facing early dismissal to have unlimited access to both their secret and top secret networks without paying any attention to his downloads. But the semantics of the article's purpose (only being about the "arrest", rather than the "case") hindered the introduction of such biographical detail, and there's probably some childhood history and such still being kept out. Wnt (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the issue. WP:PSEUDO is the guide for this kind of situation, and it is pretty much being followed as you can't really write a balanced biography of Manning, as all the coverage is about his arrest. I think something to note is that we've split the event ("2010 US military leaks to WikiLeaks"?), with the "Collateral Murder" leak being dealt with at July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#Leaked video footage, Manning's arrest being dealt with in Arrest of Bradley Manning, and the other leak (which may or may not be connected to Manning) being covered at Afghan War Diary. A broadening of the Manning arrest article to cover more of the leaked video might help. Fences&Windows 23:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]