4 ms·

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'

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
    Can I just say... no thanks? I've gone through that process and successfully appealed a deletion before, but it's a dumb policy to begin with. I'm already volunteering my time to create articles for a supposedly open encyclopedia. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with your bureaucrats about whether it's noteworthy enough. Either Wikipedia culturally decides in favor of openness or you just drive away editors. No ifs and buts about it. Its bureaucracy sucks and has gotten worse over time.
    - tomcam 4y ago
      You speak for a lot of people.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
stevenjgarner 4y ago
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 commercial enterprise and success. The voice actor who was not "notable" only won over 700 awards, including most of the BIG awards – from Clio, IBA, ADDY, Hatch, New York International, Sunny, Silver Microphone, Mobius, RAC, London International, ANDY, EFFIE, The One Show, and hundreds of regional awards.
- derefr 4y ago
  Wikipedia serves the public, and its notability heuristic is demand-driven. It doesn't matter how famous someone is within their own domain, if a member of the public outside of that domain would never have reason to look that person up, and therefore would get no marginal value out of Wikipedia having that page. 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.)
  - stevenjgarner 4y ago
    I disagree. Information today is a unified field across all domains - wikipedia has done better than most at addressing that - you may search for something thinking of it in one domain only to find it relevant in another domain. A domain-specific wiki would not deliver that. The first thought that comes to mind is millions of (public) entrepreneurs who in search of a business / domain / trademark name invariably include in their search a peek on Wikipedia. Such searches cross-fertilize so much creativity. And I also disagree. I'll bet you know James Earl Jones not just as Darth Vader but also because of his instantly recognized voice. In the past 30 days, commercials featuring James Earl Jones have had 28,635 airings. [0] > The dynamics of the ad audio industry are stacked against building public recognition While that is true, the opposite is equally true. Advertisers pay top dollar for instantly recognized voices, which are countless in number. [0] https://www.ispot.tv/topic/actor-actress/kes/james-earl-jones https://www.ispot.tv/topic/actor-actress/kes/james-earl-jone...

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
  Can I just say... no thanks? I've gone through that process and successfully appealed a deletion before, but it's a dumb policy to begin with. I'm already volunteering my time to create articles for a supposedly open encyclopedia. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with your bureaucrats about whether it's noteworthy enough. Either Wikipedia culturally decides in favor of openness or you just drive away editors. No ifs and buts about it. Its bureaucracy sucks and has gotten worse over time.
  - tomcam 4y ago
    You speak for a lot of people.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

stevenjgarner 4y ago

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 commercial enterprise and success. The voice actor who was not "notable" only won over 700 awards, including most of the BIG awards – from Clio, IBA, ADDY, Hatch, New York International, Sunny, Silver Microphone, Mobius, RAC, London International, ANDY, EFFIE, The One Show, and hundreds of regional awards.

derefr 4y ago
Wikipedia serves the public, and its notability heuristic is demand-driven. It doesn't matter how famous someone is within their own domain, if a member of the public outside of that domain would never have reason to look that person up, and therefore would get no marginal value out of Wikipedia having that page. 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.)
- stevenjgarner 4y ago
  I disagree. Information today is a unified field across all domains - wikipedia has done better than most at addressing that - you may search for something thinking of it in one domain only to find it relevant in another domain. A domain-specific wiki would not deliver that. The first thought that comes to mind is millions of (public) entrepreneurs who in search of a business / domain / trademark name invariably include in their search a peek on Wikipedia. Such searches cross-fertilize so much creativity. And I also disagree. I'll bet you know James Earl Jones not just as Darth Vader but also because of his instantly recognized voice. In the past 30 days, commercials featuring James Earl Jones have had 28,635 airings. [0] > The dynamics of the ad audio industry are stacked against building public recognition While that is true, the opposite is equally true. Advertisers pay top dollar for instantly recognized voices, which are countless in number. [0] https://www.ispot.tv/topic/actor-actress/kes/james-earl-jones https://www.ispot.tv/topic/actor-actress/kes/james-earl-jone...