| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 08/16/2009 : 00:52:28
|
O.K., this is not a contest but it's kind of a game.
Who is the most famous person who doesn't have their own Wikiedia page?
Obviously there isn't a definitive answer, but it's interesting to see who doesn't that one might have thought would have. |
|
|
Larry 
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 08/16/2009 : 02:44:49
|
benj clews -- a terrible oversight as far as I'm concerned. |
 |
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 08/16/2009 : 15:12:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
O.K., this is not a contest but it's kind of a game.
Who is the most famous person who doesn't have their own Wikiedia page?
Obviously there isn't a definitive answer, but it's interesting to see who doesn't that one might have thought would have.
I can think of several successful and admired horse trainers who deserve a wikipedia page much more than the smarmy fraud Monty Roberts. Roberts' crew uses his to promote his business, even though that is against wikipedia rules. Thanks to some astute wikipedia volunteers (you know who you are  ), most of Roberts' narcissistic promotion on the page has been "reined in."
To answer the question, a few horse trainers who are rock stars in my world are Bill & Tina Kaven, Troy Compton, and Doug Milholland. It is a profession which can sometimes be dangerous. Presently, Milholland is recovering from a wreck with a spooky horse:
(from the NRHA site)
>Doug Milholland, 1990 NRHA Futurity champion and head trainer at the Waggoner Ranch, Electra, Texas, is home now recuperating from a serious accident on July 29 when a young mare he was riding spooked and Doug was injured. He was taken to the emergency room, where, after X-rays and an MRI, doctors determined his injuries were serious enough that he was air-lifted to Parkland Hospital in Dallas. There, he was put into the ICU trauma unit. A few days later he had surgery for a condition called “open-book” fracture, where the ligaments attaching the two sides of his pelvis were severed. The bones weren’t broken, but splayed open. After a week, Milholland was given the okay to go home, largely due to his excellent physical condition prior to the surgery. He’ll undergo physical therapy but all looks positive for a full recovery.> |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/16/2009 : 16:27:01
|
I remember you mentioning that horrible individual, so I'm glad that people are doing their bit to limit him.
I was thinking of rather more famous than that, though. (I don't mean that their fame means they ought to have articles, of course.) Here are the ones I had in mind:
Malia and Sasha Obama
Blake Fielder-Civil (probably only famous in Britain)
Can anyone beat those? |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 08/16/2009 : 19:36:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Blake Fielder-Civil (probably only famous in Britain)
Can anyone beat those?
LOL. "Me Blake incarcerated" had a separate article for a while, but it was wisely redirected to Amy Winehouse based on lack of notability beyond having married Amy Winehouse. For a long time, Kevin Federline fell to the same rationale. Unfortunately, I do believe he became notable later, though I'm still not clear on how he did so. |
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 08/16/2009 : 23:23:51
|
| I submit Allakariallak, the Eskimo actor who portrayed Nanook in Nanook of the North, a film of widespread popularity during its initial release in the early 1920s and has withstood the test of time. Unfortunately, Allakariallak died not long after the film's completion so he probably did not recieve any money off the back end of the film's success (I doubt his family did either and I doubt it was in his contract). |
Edited by - GHcool on 08/16/2009 23:25:00 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/17/2009 : 01:47:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I submit Allakariallak
Good one, GH. I would have taken for granted that he had a page.
You've also caused me to find this film for one of my accolades. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/17/2009 : 16:26:43
|
| Other ones would be perpetrators and victims in some famous crime cases. The name often redirects to e.g. Fritzl case. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 08/17/2009 : 22:13:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Other ones would be perpetrators and victims in some famous crime cases. The name often redirects to e.g. Fritzl case.
This is something with which I'm not in total agreement. That's often done under the rationale of "notable for one event only". That event is often interpreted as the murder/disappearance, etc. However, to me, if the event is considered notable, then I think the perpetrator is as well. However, there are quite a lot of articles about murder victims. See here and subcategories. In some cases, the victim was notable before the crime, so that isn't an issue. Think Sharon Tate, then that murder case was so high profile the rest of the victims end up with their own articles. Other cases are also so high profile, more often in recent cases, that the victim becomes notable (Laci Peterson, Natalee Holloway), though that's often a matter of how much media coverage is generated. Is that a matter of how much money is spent to publicize the case? In some cases, such as Holloway, I think so. That and blame the likes of Nancy Grace in the US. I think if the victim is, or becomes notable, then articles are rightfully appropriate. What becomes problematic on something like Wikipedia is when the articles are turned into memorials. That happened with the article on Cassie Bernall, one of the Columbine victims, who was misidentified as the person who was asked if she believed in God and then was fairly martyrized when it was believed she was shot after saying yes. Turns out, however, Bernall was never asked that question, someone else (Valeen Schnurr) was, and she lived. It's a sticky wicket topic area. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/18/2009 : 14:22:52
|
I always notice that even babies in royal families get their own pages -- they're only notable for being children of people who are only notable for being children of people who are only notable for... 
O.K., I know the older royals have done stuff, although not usually anything that could be deemed an achievement, but the babies have done nothing except just normal babyness! |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 08/18/2009 : 23:54:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
O.K., I know the older royals have done stuff, although not usually anything that could be deemed an achievement, but the babies have done nothing except just normal babyness!
Don't you mean royal babyness?  |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Wikipedia teaser
