Content deleted Content added
Badgerpatrol (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 1,208:
Marsden is not notable for being involved in that SFU case; she is notable for something else. That said, a single sentence on SFU is probably OK. As for "Jimbogate": this is just gossip about people behaving badly -- and, to repeat myself, has no bearing on the reason why Marsden's article is here (her publications and punditry) and should thus go. The criterion is not "being involved in a single event that makes you famous", but rather something more substantive. [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] <small>([[User:Sdedeo/advice|tips]])</small> 00:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:This article is here to act as a biography of Marsden. This is part of the biography of Marsden. It would be utterly ridiculous for a reader browsing this article to not find information on the only thing she is actually famous for outside of the US and Canada. The criteria you refer to pertains to the "creation" of an article, not events in the life of a subject otherwise notable anyway. Not reporting events in someone's life because they only happened once would be absurd. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] ([[User talk:Badgerpatrol|talk]]) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I refer to you to [[Wikipedia:BLP#People_who_are_relatively_unknown]]. "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability."
The admonition to exercise restraint in what to include -- only that that has bearing on the subject's notability -- directly contradicts your assertions, no matter how "obvious" they seem to you. [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] <small>([[User:Sdedeo/advice|tips]])</small> 00:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
| |||