Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by aliswe 2212 days ago
That is actually a kinda good reason.
1 comments

Aren't most notable people notable for one notable thing? Sorry, to get into Wikipedia, you'd have to win at least one gold medal at the Olympic games, be elected president of at least two countries, die in no less than 3 battles, AND you have to be the first confirmed case of at least one pandemic.
I think a rule of thumb is that something must have been written that was about you, rather than about your creation or whatever. The idea is that as Wikipedia is supposed to be a summarization of the secondary sources on a topic, there should be some material that would fit only in an article about you, and not in the article on whatever you're famous for. Some interesting examples are in the section about “people notable for only one event”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#... (which is not about people who created something and does not apply here! Just mentioning it for what it shows about interesting aspects of their policy.)
Having created a notable thing is not EXACTLY the same as being notable. Sometimes.
I agree with that. Wikipedia certainly has a page about Kim Kardashian. She is notable. For what? For being notable. Perfect case for Wikipedia.