5 ms·
It has been deleted and now his entry redirects to Clojure. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Hickey&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org
by gregschlom 6y ago
It has been deleted and now his entry redirects to Clojure.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Hickey&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Hickey&actio...
- dragandj 6y agoWhat a hilarious reasoning that editor gives: > Restoring redirect - I see no evidence that he is notable for anything but Clojure Redirecting the Wikipedia article for Elizabeth II to buckingham.co.uk. I see no evidence that she is notable for anything but being the British queen.
- thijsvandien 6y agoBy that reasoning, we might as well remove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_van_Rossum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_van_Rossum.
- aliswe 6y agoThat is actually a kinda good reason.
- dragandj 6y agoAren'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.
- aliswe 6y agoHaving created a notable thing is not EXACTLY the same as being notable. Sometimes.
- dragandj 6y agoI agree with that. Wikipedia certainly has a page about Kim Kardashian. She is notable. For what? For being notable. Perfect case for Wikipedia.
- svat 6y agoI 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)#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.)
- dang 6y agoHe's notable as a thinker and speaker about programming, quite apart from Clojure. The idea pool is the same, but that's true of any thinker. It's a bad argument regardless. Plenty of figures in intellectual history are notable because of one big thing they created, and I'm sure most have Wikipedia pages. Alas I'm blanking on examples just now.
- dragandj 6y agoI'm confused by your reply, since we both agree that Rich deserves a wikipedia page.
- lispm 6y agoI never understood the rationale behind the deletion. Being the primary designer of a popular programming language is relevant enough for me.
- chiyc 6y agoDefinitely. I've come across plenty of Wikpedia profiles that are just self-maintained profiles by hardly known entrepreneurs or startup founders. Ranging from Clojure and Datomic, to his insightful talks on software design, and everything else in between, Rich Hickey's made far more significant contributions to the world in comparison.