Live data from Hacker News

A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

tedgioia.substack.com

31–40 of 185 posts

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#31

Wikipedia includes entries based on notability, but they have their own idea on notability. A friend of mine is a famous voice actor who has won not one but two CLIO awards. Wikipedia deleted the page I created for him on the basis that he was not notable. Another page I created was for the person who introduced deaf sign language to New Zealand. Deleted as she was not notable. There are more than 19,000 entries for…

Wikipedia's notability guideline does not pass judgement on the importance of Oscars or "CLIOs," both of which are notable and have their own pages.

Wikipedia's guideline for the notability of voice actors is:[1]

> 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

> 2. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

This can be difficult to define. I'd suggest you instead follow the guideline of notability for people generally, which is:[2]

> A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

I'm always sorry to hear about someone that has gotten frustrated editing Wikipedia. Even though I'd discourage it as a conflict of interest, editors have successfully created articles for friends by simply citing reliable secondary sources that cover them. I'd suggest you give it another try if such sources exist and reach out in the Teahouse[3] if you need help.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#32

Please read the discussion that deleted this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... It's a hard problem. Volunteer editors are spread thinly over millions of articles, some of which (like "Bruce Faulconer") are about living people that are really important to get right.[1] The project has settled on the guideline of _notability_, meaning that articles are kept only if they have signi…

>Volunteer editors are spread thinly over millions of articles

I would like to point out that this is, effectively, a very clever way of saying that Wikipedia is controlled by a tiny group of people whose goals for Wikipedia do not match the expectations of the general public.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#33

Wikipedia includes entries based on notability, but they have their own idea on notability. A friend of mine is a famous voice actor who has won not one but two CLIO awards. Wikipedia deleted the page I created for him on the basis that he was not notable. Another page I created was for the person who introduced deaf sign language to New Zealand. Deleted as she was not notable. There are more than 19,000 entries for…

Wikipedia's notability requirements are enforced very haphazardly. Broadly, editors and admins can be split into two camps: inclusionists who want to add everything and exclusionists who want to delete everything. The life of your new article entirely depends on who happens to stumble upon it.

I've had success appealing notability deletions in the past, but it was a pain in the ass, especially after I just spent hours researching, sourcing, writing, referencing, and proofing the article. I never made a new article again after that.

Sadly, some of the admins there are power tripping idiots who will also use random loopholes to forbid edits that don't reflect their own ideologies, often in direct contrast to Wikipedia's own guidelines.

Like any bureaucracy, it has become a cabal of aristocrats who are in it for the power and control. Regular lowly editors generally don't have much recourse. It made me gave up on editing Wikipedia. Became an editor in 2004 and the climate has changed dramatically since then, from "newbies welcome, please edit" to "this is my private library, don't touch anything!"

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#34

> A few days ago, composer Bruce Faulconer found that his Wikipedia entry had suddenly disappeared. This was surprising because his music is known and beloved all over the world—in fact, it has been heard in more than 80 countries. Hmmm how do I already know from the first paragraph this article is bogus? Let me search this person I've never heard of. Oh, there's nothing. He's literally not noteable. "Heard in more t…

I recognized the name immediately.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#35

Wikipedia includes entries based on notability, but they have their own idea on notability. A friend of mine is a famous voice actor who has won not one but two CLIO awards. Wikipedia deleted the page I created for him on the basis that he was not notable. Another page I created was for the person who introduced deaf sign language to New Zealand. Deleted as she was not notable. There are more than 19,000 entries for…

Sounds like The Clio Awards need to get the word out

Talk to anybody in advertising, marketing, radio and television ... believe me they know what a CLIO is (and get paid accordingly). There are so many industry specialties now, that to be a dominant player in one may render you virtually unknown in all others.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#36
post #21
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons for the policies is so questions such as "should this person have an article" don't devolve into popularity polls.

I'm sorry, but "is this musician notable" literally is a popularity contest.

Two different objections.

First, while the most written-about musicians are also generally the most popular, there isn't a strict correlation.

Second, there is a vast difference between a decision-process of "if the sources provided show that this person is popular, they are notable" and "if three of the four Wikipedia editors surveyed like this person's music, they are notable".

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#37
post #21
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons for the policies is so questions such as "should this person have an article" don't devolve into popularity polls.

I'm sorry, but "is this musician notable" literally is a popularity contest.

but that's not how Wikipedia works. their policies don't care how popular or well-known someone or something is, what matters is whether or not journalists, news outlets, and other such groups (who must themselves be "notable") find them "notable" enough to cover. the Philip Roth story mentioned in the article is one such example of this—it's a good thing Mr. Roth worked at The New Yorker (a verified "notable" news outlet) so he could set the record straight about his own article, otherwise he would've been shit outta luck!

it's really odd the degree to which Wikipedia's policies enshrine commercial journalism outlets as the Arbiters of Notability.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#38

Wikipedia includes entries based on notability, but they have their own idea on notability. A friend of mine is a famous voice actor who has won not one but two CLIO awards. Wikipedia deleted the page I created for him on the basis that he was not notable. Another page I created was for the person who introduced deaf sign language to New Zealand. Deleted as she was not notable. There are more than 19,000 entries for…

Wikipedia's notability guideline does not pass judgement on the importance of Oscars or "CLIOs," both of which are notable and have their own pages. Wikipedia's guideline for the notability of voice actors is:[1] > 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or > 2. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment…

The problem isn't with the editors, but admins who spuriously make these judgment calls. It takes hours to create a new article and seconds to delete it. Not going to spend hours more in the silly appeals process.

The bar on deletion should be as high or higher than the bar on creation (spam aside, of course) or you're just going to keep losing editors. Nobody has time to play these stupid games with the juvenile admins.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#39

> A few days ago, composer Bruce Faulconer found that his Wikipedia entry had suddenly disappeared. This was surprising because his music is known and beloved all over the world—in fact, it has been heard in more than 80 countries. Hmmm how do I already know from the first paragraph this article is bogus? Let me search this person I've never heard of. Oh, there's nothing. He's literally not noteable. "Heard in more t…

Unixbane Has Spoken!

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#40

> A few days ago, composer Bruce Faulconer found that his Wikipedia entry had suddenly disappeared. This was surprising because his music is known and beloved all over the world—in fact, it has been heard in more than 80 countries. Hmmm how do I already know from the first paragraph this article is bogus? Let me search this person I've never heard of. Oh, there's nothing. He's literally not noteable. "Heard in more t…

Hmm, maybe we'd all learn something about this guy if only he had a Wikipedia page. Guess his life's work is too expensive for Wikipedia's hard drives.
Post reply on HN