If you want a higher level, 90% of the present members of the US National Academy of Engineering do not have articles.
"More than one thing" seems a weird standard, in my opinion. An athlete wouldnt be notable unless also a movie star? But perhaps you mean elected twice to their legislature? I do not consider myself an extreme inclusionist. I for example do not support the inclusion of members of most city councils, or local school boards. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.wooll...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29/03/2010, David Goodman <dgoodma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Even for the US, about 80% of the members of state legislatures >> historically are not covered. For the current Michigan House of >> Representatives, only 50% of the current members have articles, and >> almost none of the earlier ones. >> this is very low-lying fruit, well within the reach of any beginner. > > There's the question as to how notable they really are; would you ever > get significant coverage for most of them? Is part of Wikipedia's > mission really to have all of the members of congress, or would we > just link out to that? > > My suspicion is that whatever the policies say, a lot of this would get AFDd. > > In any case, an encyclopedia is supposed to summarise knowledge. > Unless a particular person is really important to that *summary* for > more than one thing they probably shouldn't be in the Wikipedia. > >> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > -- > -Ian Woollard > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l