A funeral is held one day, 50,000 people attend. A funeral is held the next day, 100 people attend.
Which person was probably better known, in your opinion?
Probably the first person, I'll happily admit.
But that says nothing about whether the person was (for example) good, or liked. It could be that many people are showing up to cheer their death. Equally, it says nothing about whether that person was especially talented, or even real.
How many people heard of the "death" of Dumbledore? And how many people knew of the death of my father? Does the fact that the one was known to more people than the other mean that Dumbledore was a more popular, more important, more real
person than my father?
You are new in town, and wish to find a chinese restaurant. You drive past the only two in town. One is full and has a queue of people awaiting service, the other is open but you can only see two people in it.
What seems the most likely explanation for the huge popularity of one and the almost desertion of the other?
Funnily enough, there are two restaurants very close to each other in my town. One, that I love, does excellent all-you-can-eat food. The other (which I tried once) is more expensive; has a set (and more limited) menu; and (to my mind, at least) does not have as nice food. The only way they differ is that the former is in a side street, the latter in the high street.
Let me ask you a question. "X-Factor" regularly pulls in millions of viewers. "Panormana" (a current affairs programme) gets only a fraction of that amount. Based on that information ALONE, which program is better?
The point people are trying to make is that just because lotsa people have heard of someone does not necessarily say anything about that person, other than (duh!) people have heard of him. Many, many more people have heard of Mohammed than (let's say) the Egyptian God Atun. What credibility do you believe that gives to Mohammed?