61–70 of 185 posts
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.
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…
But there is a difference between having someone's name listed in a table on a page in Wikipedia, and that person needing an entire Wikipedia article about them.
If there's only one notable fact about someone, then that fact is data, and is best recorded together with other data of the same shape, to put it in the context of its meaning.
It's only when there are many distinct notable facts about someone, all of different shapes, where the best way to connect all those facts together is in carefully-formatted prose, that the right way to record that data becomes "a distinct Wikipedia page for that topic."
Honestly even if he isn’t famous why can’t Wikipedia keep his entry? Why does Wikipedia even have “notable” requirements anyways? There’s not a storage issue. Wikipedia can literally have billions of articles and still be easy to maintain. There’s not really a quality issue. Wikipedia is known for not being 100% reliable. But moreover, they have tons of ways to denote “this article needs citations” and “this isn’t a…
First of all, Wikipedia has banned all T-Mobile IPs from being able to even log in to my account... 10 years ago when I tried to post my biography there, they rejected it for lack of notability... Twitter also requires an entry to be published on Wikipedia for artists, now I could probably wait forever until someone still never writes one about me, or I could choose to pay a renowned publication to run a fluff piece on me like many other musicians do.
I am so tired of the manufactured gatekeeping nonsense that is required of me just to make music and be heard, no wonder why so many quit the business... ugh.
WP could retain the exact notability requirements they currently have, as written, and still vastly improve the situation from the current mess. As it stands:
- mentions of any thing or person without a pre-existing article (by extension meeting notability requirements) are quickly deleted by fans of the frequently referenced "Write the Article First" essay[0]. While this essay is clearly labelled as an opinion piece, not policy, that opinion is staunchly defended by people with more time on their hands than you do.
- Any effort to follow the essay's advice and actually create a new article is quickly curbed: despite the notability requirements policies containing detailed sections on the benefits of "stubs" as prompts to grow useful article content, newly minted articles are summarily deleted if they are not perfect on first draft (and extremely comprehensively referenced).
When I first started contributing to Wikipedia almost 2 decades ago, these articles and similar debates between cohorts of "deletionists", etc. certainly existed, but what looks to have happened over the years is that the most progressive of those cohorts left, probably tired of constantly grappling with the hostilities of those with seemingly nothing better to do than to pour all of their hours into making Wikipedia their staunchly defended castle.
Becoming a new contributor to Wikipedia today involves a barrier to entry only zealots will bother to spend time overcoming.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Write_the_article_...
As mentioned in the discussion page [1], there doesn't seem to have any coverage from mass media about him, the only opponent in the discussion lists a bunch of sources/references that are either database-type websites, attendance lists, or product credit. These unfortunately don't really count, any professionals would have such things to a degree.
Also it looks like he self-edited the page [2]. This isn't strictly prohibited AFAIK, but it will raise self-promotion [3] red flag and obviously there were hardly any references in his editing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Faulconer&d...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
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 hour…
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 executive even at a large global company? Very possibly not--especially if they pre-dated the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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…
Personally, I don't know the name of a single advertising voice actor. Nor would anyone even three steps removed within my social circle. I suspect nobody would, save for people in the advertising industry. Ads don't have credits rolls; there's no distinctive visual to recognize voice-actors by, like there is for pitch-men; and voice actors even often sell themselves on their ability to imitate popular ad voices, so "that voice" isn't necessarily just one person. The dynamics of the ad audio industry are stacked against building public recognition.
This is the perfect use-case for a domain-specific wiki about advertisements (which tbh would be a really good idea for several reasons; there isn't much centralized effort currently to do presevation/cataloguing/history on ad media.)
Honestly even if he isn’t famous why can’t Wikipedia keep his entry? Why does Wikipedia even have “notable” requirements anyways? There’s not a storage issue. Wikipedia can literally have billions of articles and still be easy to maintain. There’s not really a quality issue. Wikipedia is known for not being 100% reliable. But moreover, they have tons of ways to denote “this article needs citations” and “this isn’t a…
To prevent me having a Wikipedia page.
> 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…
Dude he's the guy that did the music for Dragonball, a thirty billion dollar franchise. I'm shocked he was removed from Wikipedia.
Pedantically: "In another bizarre case, an editor at Wikipedia told Philip Roth, “one of the most awarded American authors of his generation” (according to Wikipedia) that he was not a reliable source on the subject of Philip Roth." Philip Roth is not an authoritative source on Philip Roth. I would have thought that was obvious.