5 ms·

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 tw

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 CLIO awards [0] from 62 countries yet only 18 Clio Awards juries comprised of industry leaders from across the globe awarded 13 Grand Clios in 2020/2021 [1]. The Global Advertising Agencies Market Size in 2022 was worth approx. $332.1 billion [2]. By comparison the Academy Awards give out Oscars in 24 categories [3] to nominees selected from only 9,921 members [4]. The Motion Picture Association released a new report on the international box office and home entertainment market showing that the industry reached $101 billion USD in 2019 [5]. Oscars are considered notable. CLIOs are not. It would appear that making art is notable (except in the sad case of Bruce Faulconer), while impacting an entire industry or contributing to marketing or education in a highly visibly recognized manner is not. [0] https://clios.com/ https://clios.com/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clio_Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clio_Awards [2] https://www.ibisworld.com/global/market-size/global-advertising-agencies/ https://www.ibisworld.com/global/market-size/global-advertis... [3] https://www.britannica.com/art/Academy-Award https://www.britannica.com/art/Academy-Award [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Motion_Picture_Arts_and_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Motion_Picture_Arts... [5] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rosaescandon/2020/03/12/the-film-industry-made-a-record-breaking-100-billion-last-year/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rosaescandon/2020/03/12/the-fil...

kupopuffs 4y ago
Sounds like The Clio Awards need to get the word out
- stevenjgarner 4y ago
  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.
  - kupopuffs 4y ago
    that, and ads get a bad rap, but damn does it bring in the $$$
glasshug 4y ago
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)#Entertainers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse
- solardev 4y ago
  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.
  - glasshug 4y ago
    > 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_deletion/Bruce_Faulconer 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 "non-controversial" deletions and there's no appeals process—it can be added back with no justification at any time if any editor disagrees with the deletion. The full deletion process that takes time to appeal is "Articles for Deletion,"[2] through which articles are deleted only through 7 days of consensus-building. This is the process "Bruce Faulconer" went through. I know it's confusing, and often really frustrating. I'd encourage you to try contesting your PROD deletion if you're willing to give it another try, because it really will bring the article back instantly. It can be difficult for new editors, but users of this forum are a bit better than the average person at source editing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
solardev 4y ago
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!"
- ghaff 4y ago
  >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 executive even at a large global company? Very possibly not--especially if they pre-dated the internet.
  - justincormack 4y ago
    Often its related to people not finding sources when they start articles, if you do detailed research first rather than posting a stub survival rates are higher. However thats often not how articles come about.
    - solardev 4y ago
      I sourced an article from 5-6 major news sources and it was nominated for deletion within hours. It ultimately survived appeals but why the hell did I have to waste my time on that.
derefr 4y ago
Most people would expect there to be a table on the "Clio Awards" Wikipedia page that lists award winners. I don't think anyone would object if such a table was added to the page; just nobody has done it yet. 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."
- stevenjgarner 4y ago
  I like it. What can make a name on that list notable above other names is the plethora of other awards they may have also made - in advertising it would not just be ClIO, but IBA, ADDY, Hatch, New York International, Sunny, Silver Microphone, Mobius, RAC, London International, ANDY, EFFIE, The One Show, not to mention regional awards. A multidimensional matrix of such award winners would indicate true notability. Other factors might also include the notability of the campaign they created - e.g. the famous 1984 Apple Chiat Day commercial [0] - or the top advertising agency revenues. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I
throwaway2037 4y ago
First: Thank you to take the time to write these Wiki pages, especially about deaf sign language in NZ. Maybe you can repost and HN can do some "Internet battle" to keep that page alive? It would be an interesting "Internet fight". Regarding bizarre pages that remain (but yours does not): a daily cloud -- yes, read that right... a cloud(!) -- has its own Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_(cloud) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_(cloud)

kupopuffs 4y ago

Sounds like The Clio Awards need to get the word out

stevenjgarner 4y ago
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.
- kupopuffs 4y ago
  that, and ads get a bad rap, but damn does it bring in the $$$

glasshug 4y ago

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)#Entertainers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

solardev 4y ago
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.
- glasshug 4y ago
  > 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_deletion/Bruce_Faulconer 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 "non-controversial" deletions and there's no appeals process—it can be added back with no justification at any time if any editor disagrees with the deletion. The full deletion process that takes time to appeal is "Articles for Deletion,"[2] through which articles are deleted only through 7 days of consensus-building. This is the process "Bruce Faulconer" went through. I know it's confusing, and often really frustrating. I'd encourage you to try contesting your PROD deletion if you're willing to give it another try, because it really will bring the article back instantly. It can be difficult for new editors, but users of this forum are a bit better than the average person at source editing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

solardev 4y ago

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!"

ghaff 4y ago
>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 executive even at a large global company? Very possibly not--especially if they pre-dated the internet.
- justincormack 4y ago
  Often its related to people not finding sources when they start articles, if you do detailed research first rather than posting a stub survival rates are higher. However thats often not how articles come about.
  - solardev 4y ago
    I sourced an article from 5-6 major news sources and it was nominated for deletion within hours. It ultimately survived appeals but why the hell did I have to waste my time on that.

derefr 4y ago

Most people would expect there to be a table on the "Clio Awards" Wikipedia page that lists award winners. I don't think anyone would object if such a table was added to the page; just nobody has done it yet. 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."

stevenjgarner 4y ago
I like it. What can make a name on that list notable above other names is the plethora of other awards they may have also made - in advertising it would not just be ClIO, but IBA, ADDY, Hatch, New York International, Sunny, Silver Microphone, Mobius, RAC, London International, ANDY, EFFIE, The One Show, not to mention regional awards. A multidimensional matrix of such award winners would indicate true notability. Other factors might also include the notability of the campaign they created - e.g. the famous 1984 Apple Chiat Day commercial [0] - or the top advertising agency revenues. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I

throwaway2037 4y ago

First: Thank you to take the time to write these Wiki pages, especially about deaf sign language in NZ. Maybe you can repost and HN can do some "Internet battle" to keep that page alive? It would be an interesting "Internet fight". Regarding bizarre pages that remain (but yours does not): a daily cloud -- yes, read that right... a cloud(!) -- has its own Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_(cloud) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_(cloud)