Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why does Wikipedia even have “notable” requirements anyways? To prevent me having a Wikipedia page.
Pretty sure you have one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_spoofing ;-)
Damn you’re good
A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page
161–170 of 185 posts
Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem isn't with the editors, but admins who spuriously make these judgment calls. Deletion decisions are made by editors, not admins. See, for example, the decision referenced by the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... > It takes hours to create a new article and seconds to delete it. I think the "seconds to delete it" process you're describing is PROD[1], which is for "no…
Can I just say... no thanks? I've gone through that process and successfully appealed a deletion before, but it's a dumb policy to begin with. I'm already volunteering my time to create articles for a supposedly open encyclopedia. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with your bureaucrats about whether it's noteworthy enough. Either Wikipedia culturally decides in favor of openness or you just drive away editors. N…
You speak for a lot of people.
Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the problem right there. Advertising is not even included. The number one employer of voice actors (advertisements) and they're not even included in Wikipedia's guideline for the notability of voice actors. I suggest a major revision in that Wikipedia guideline. > significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions - this shows the Wikipedia bias against comm…
Wikipedia serves the public, and its notability heuristic is demand-driven. It doesn't matter how famous someone is within their own domain, if a member of the public outside of that domain would never have reason to look that person up, and therefore would get no marginal value out of Wikipedia having that page. Personally, I don't know the name of a single advertising voice actor. Nor would anyone even three steps…
Disagree completely, with respect. Suppose you hear someone with an exceptional voice on a commercial for Toyota or whatever. Why wouldn’t you want to find it on Wikipedia even if it’s the only commercial that person that has ever done it? You may not know about the existence of specialized wikis.
Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page
#164> Just a few months before Donna Strickland won the Nobel, a Wikipedia editor had smugly insisted that she wasn’t a notable physicist. I heard about this at the time, and it stood out to me as totally missing the point. It's completely 100% possible that winning the Nobel Prize elevated Dr. Strickland from not notable to notable. A physicist who has done work that could win a Nobel Prize is probably getting close to…
This isn't the case. I'm familiar with the standards applied for living philosophers, and they fall far short of the level of "future Nobel prize winner" (A quick glance at Wikipedia show I took classes from 7 such individuals while in grad school). Similarly for physicists: there are over 1000 21st century physicists listed on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-century_physicis... .
You misrepresent my claim. I said it is natural to assume that someone who has done work that will earn a Nobel prize is at least approaching notability. I did not say that is required for notability.
I'm not a wikipedia expert but many of those don't meet their criteria for notability. Taking the first in the Canadian physicists category, I get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Abella The only non-primary source that isn't an obituary is Who's Who in Science and Engineering. He objectively doesn't meet the criteria listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic...
I can't find the original pre-deletion article, but the edit comments mention that Strickland was a past president of the Optical Society. The guidelines for notability contemplate this sort of thing when they say "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society)". There are lots of other criteria, but that's one of them, and we can recognize that the Optical Society is not in the same category.
You can say wikipedia's notability criteria are inconsistently applied. I'm not surprised. But most of these complaints amount to asking wikipedia to recognize inherent merit, which it doesn't do. Wikipedia correctly recognized Strickland's notability after the Nobel committee recognized her merit and accomplishments.
Interestingly, while responding to this I noticed that the article we are discussing here, when talking about Strickland, probably misrepresents things. The edit history on wikipedia shows an article was created and then deleted in 2014, not "just a few months before Donna Strickland won the Nobel". The Washington Post article cited in the previous sentence doesn't support that claim either. So part of what we are discussing here includes supposed facts which might be fully invented or significantly distorted by the reporter.
Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem isn't with the editors, but admins who spuriously make these judgment calls. Deletion decisions are made by editors, not admins. See, for example, the decision referenced by the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... > It takes hours to create a new article and seconds to delete it. I think the "seconds to delete it" process you're describing is PROD[1], which is for "no…
Can I just say... no thanks? I've gone through that process and successfully appealed a deletion before, but it's a dumb policy to begin with. I'm already volunteering my time to create articles for a supposedly open encyclopedia. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with your bureaucrats about whether it's noteworthy enough. Either Wikipedia culturally decides in favor of openness or you just drive away editors. N…
[deleted]
Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wikipedia serves the public, and its notability heuristic is demand-driven. This sentence seems to be incompatible with itself. > the public This constitutes all public groups, including the advertising industry. > its notability heuristic is demand-driven Driven by who ? The editors at Wikipedia? Depending on which domain they reside in, they may have a very skewed perception of what the demand in a particular are…
> This constitutes all public groups, including the advertising industry. You're making a useless semiotic distinction. The default English-language connotation of the words "the public" is to refer to "lay-people; civilians; people with a non-vocational interest in a subject." As in, Wikipedia is not an academic publication, nor is it an industrial publication, nor is it an esoteric publication. When such interests…
> Like I said — demand. As in, analytics data of what users are trying to look up — Google Analytics traffic for "[topic] wikipedia"; things typed into Wikipedia's own search box; etc
Yeah, no. That's literally never cited as a reason to keep or delete a page.
Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page
#167Just adding wikipedia discussion links so people can get a bit of context
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FaulconerProductions...
Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
> an encyclopaedia that .. Wikipedia has the loosest standard of inclusion among any encyclopedia ever existed, not sure why that's depressing.
Because it is a much tighter “standard” than it needs to be given the constraints. It is depressing to think of all the effort that people put into writing articles that no one can ever benefit from, knowing there’s no good reason for their work to be wasted in this way.
Maybe they shouldnt write these articles on Wikipedia then? Make your own website or wiki and nobody is going to delete it.
Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page
#169I was making a Wikipedia page back in 2004 about Deaf Cultures and Deaf Educators. Both were summarily deleted. So I started it again but under my User directory. That too got deleted. So, Wikipedia editors are inherently anti-diversity.
This sounds like a bad experience. I find Wikipedia pretty daunting and I'm not surprised you got tripped up trying to edit.
But as a lay person reading your post, I do not know what "Deaf Cultures and Deaf Educators" is. Is this a book? I tried googling for it but didn't find it. Wikipedia does have an article on Deaf culture (lowercase c): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture -- it was created in March of 2004. I am not sure about "Deaf educators", but Wikipedia does have an article on Deaf education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_education and on Dead studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_studies and on Schools for the deaf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_for_the_deaf (this one is in notable need of expansion). It looks like the separate article for Deaf education sprung into being in the early 2010s and previously redirect-merged to deaf culture.
I think it's at least possible here that you were not discriminated against as part of an anti-diversity agenda, but rather that you misunderstood some of Wikipedia's needlessly complicated rules or maybe didn't present what you were trying to add in the right way.
I went back through the articles for deletion discussion for all of 2004 and could not find a discussion about deleting an article by the name you said. I went through the full list of deleted articles in 2001-2004 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_log -- and searched for "deaf" and didn't find anything relevant ever. If your pages were deleted after 2004, they're only visible in the modern deletion log and that requires an exact title match unless you're an administrator, which I am not. So unfortunately I think without more information it's going to be hard to help you 18 years later.
But I'm pretty sure it was not because Wikipedia editors were anti-diversity.
Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
>inclusionists who want to add everything and exclusionists who want to delete everything That's probably a bit B&W but a lot of people tend towards one side or the other. Part of it too also relates to the availability of secondary sources which are far more available for some domains than others. Even a fairly minor politician or entertainer has probably had quite a bit written about them by third parties. A senior…
I didn't make it up, but I did get the terms slightly wrong. It's "inclusionists" vs "deletionists" (not exclusionists). There's literally a Wikipedia page about it (how notable is THAT): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_i... It's a stupid debate to even be having. IMO only. Clearly I fall into the former camp.
I know you didn't make things up and I didn't see correcting the terminology to be worthwhile. But most people don't think simply everything makes a worthwhile article while, at the same time, I for one generally don't think articles should be deleted even if they're a bit thin on detail and notability so long as they're reasonably sourced.