4 ms·

> decide what is notable and what isn't. I feel like Wikipedia (at least English Wikipedia) has long past this, and pretty much keep everything that has even t

> decide what is notable and what isn't. I feel like Wikipedia (at least English Wikipedia) has long past this, and pretty much keep everything that has even the slightest of notability. And I have no issue with it. I see this as one of the (big) advantage of Wikipedia over traditional encyclopedia. (Don't get me wrong, I knew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability still exists.)

tubularhells 6y ago
You would be surprised how many profiles are attempted to be deleted or vandalised during election periods in the US and the UK.
- ghaff 6y ago
  That's more vandalism than being about deletions though. But it dovetails with something else. Can you really argue someone running for public office, at least with a major party, isn't notable at some level? Even if it's Register of Probate in some rural county?
  - tubularhells 6y ago
    Arguing semantics is futile unless it's in the context of linguistics.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ghaff 6y ago
My impression is that there are still a lot of deletionist editors floating around but I can't prove it. (And some cherry-picked examples in the OP don't really prove anything.) Like you, I have no issue with most articles at some level of verifiability sticking around. Most things are notable to some degree if you get local enough (whether geo, field of interest, etc.).
The_Colonel 6y ago
> ... and pretty much keep everything that has even the slightest of notability. Wikipedia keeps deleting plenty of pages. There's a lot of self promo, a lot of pages about not sufficiently notable topics etc. You could think that e.g. mayor of your local 5K town will have "slightest notability". Well if that's their only claim to fame, then their nice Wikipedia page is going to be deleted. > And I have no issue with it. I see this as one of the (big) advantage of Wikipedia over traditional encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not limited by the physical constraints, but other limits are still present - e.g. the ability to check the validity of claims of the original article and subsequent edits is limited by the available manpower.
- fireattack 6y ago
  You're right, biography is definitely a tricky one. When I was replying I was thinking of some common "complaints" about Wikipedia like "why the hell we need an article for every single team's 1928 season in 3rd tier Polish football" etc.
T-hawk 6y ago
Well, there's the selection/survivorship bias there: You only see what was deemed notable. The stuff that wasn't isn't there for you to see. (Unless you specifically go looking for it, in discussions about what was deleted or whatever.)
NoahTheDuke 6y ago
I wouldn’t be so sure. I tried to add a page for a newly released album by a band that has a sizable Wikipedia page, and within an hour it had been deleted and all of the associated link changes to update footers/etc had been reverted as well. I reopened it and added more (read: useless, unnecessary) content, and after a month in the review queue it got accepted. Adding a new page is harder than ever, because of WP:N.

tubularhells 6y ago

You would be surprised how many profiles are attempted to be deleted or vandalised during election periods in the US and the UK.

ghaff 6y ago
That's more vandalism than being about deletions though. But it dovetails with something else. Can you really argue someone running for public office, at least with a major party, isn't notable at some level? Even if it's Register of Probate in some rural county?
- tubularhells 6y ago
  Arguing semantics is futile unless it's in the context of linguistics.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ghaff 6y ago

My impression is that there are still a lot of deletionist editors floating around but I can't prove it. (And some cherry-picked examples in the OP don't really prove anything.) Like you, I have no issue with most articles at some level of verifiability sticking around. Most things are notable to some degree if you get local enough (whether geo, field of interest, etc.).

The_Colonel 6y ago

> ... and pretty much keep everything that has even the slightest of notability. Wikipedia keeps deleting plenty of pages. There's a lot of self promo, a lot of pages about not sufficiently notable topics etc. You could think that e.g. mayor of your local 5K town will have "slightest notability". Well if that's their only claim to fame, then their nice Wikipedia page is going to be deleted. > And I have no issue with it. I see this as one of the (big) advantage of Wikipedia over traditional encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not limited by the physical constraints, but other limits are still present - e.g. the ability to check the validity of claims of the original article and subsequent edits is limited by the available manpower.

fireattack 6y ago
You're right, biography is definitely a tricky one. When I was replying I was thinking of some common "complaints" about Wikipedia like "why the hell we need an article for every single team's 1928 season in 3rd tier Polish football" etc.

T-hawk 6y ago

Well, there's the selection/survivorship bias there: You only see what was deemed notable. The stuff that wasn't isn't there for you to see. (Unless you specifically go looking for it, in discussions about what was deleted or whatever.)

NoahTheDuke 6y ago

I wouldn’t be so sure. I tried to add a page for a newly released album by a band that has a sizable Wikipedia page, and within an hour it had been deleted and all of the associated link changes to update footers/etc had been reverted as well. I reopened it and added more (read: useless, unnecessary) content, and after a month in the review queue it got accepted. Adding a new page is harder than ever, because of WP:N.