5 ms·

Offtopic: I f*cking hate the deletionists. I come across articles deleted because of "lack of notability," but if they lacked notability (and I didn't create it

Offtopic: I f*cking hate the deletionists. I come across articles deleted because of "lack of notability," but if they lacked notability (and I didn't create it), why was I looking for it. They make the whole of Wikipedia much worse than it would be otherwise and prevent me from contributing even more money and time to Wikipedia.

tptacek 13y ago
Here's the AfD for Nimrod: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nimrod_(programming_language)_(2nd_nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion... Note that at the time this was submitted, all the sourcing for the article came from either web pages from the project itself, or forum posts.
- jimktrains2 13y ago
  I'm not seeing your point and I don't think you see mine. There are better methods than deletion for handling situations like this.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Like what? Finding better sources? People tried. Are there better sources, or is Nimrod simply not "that" notable yet?
    - asdasf 13y ago
      Like nothing, there is no problem with it. Just leave it alone. This whole "oh god we're the sum of all human knowledge please give us money" tripe is a bit hard to swallow when there's more information getting deleted than being created.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        There are problems with it. The simplest problem is that the whole charter of WP is to cover notable topics with reliable sources; that's the idea behind the project and has been forever. One practical problem with it is that when none of your sources are independent or notable, disinterested parties can't fact-check anything, and the encyclopedia is only as accurate as cliques of interested editors choose to make it. Once again, your argument relitigates the whole concept of WP. You don't have to like the concept, but you can't pretend that their adherence to their own charter is somehow a sign of dysfunction.
        asdasf 13y ago
        As I said: This whole "oh god we're the sum of all human knowledge please give us money" tripe is a bit hard to swallow when there's more information getting deleted than being created. If they don't want to be judged on that basis, then they need to stop making that claim. Say "we're a tiny subset of information that a particular clique of individuals approves of". Don't say one thing when begging for money and another when deleting useful content.
    - mindcrime 13y ago
      Are there better sources, or is Nimrod simply not "that" notable yet? Or we could acknowledge that there are different reasonable standards for "notability" that apply in different contexts. The idea that something isn't "notable" unless it's been written about in the NY Times, WaPo, Financial Times, etc., is just not relevant to (most) software and related projects. And if the Deletionists have "won" and there's no way to get this stuff on Wikipedia, there should be a way to use web-based technology to do something, like, oh, I don't know, some kind of federation / syndication approach where the corresponding article "exists" on Wikipedia but transparently redirects to the corresponding content on programming-languages-wiki.com or whatever. C'mon, we can do better than just deleting stuff because we're adhering to some outdated, archaic notions about what is or isn't "notable".
      - tptacek 13y ago
        That's not the Wikipedia notability standard at all! Here's WP:N: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability There are specific (broadening) rules for some specific article categories, but the general rule is: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. The big thing that trips up hackers in articles about technology is "reliability" of sources, which you can imagine is a topic that has been discussed on WP probably in greater depth than in any venue in the world and perhaps all of human history, some of which coverage is here, in WP:RS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Suffice it to say, the standard is NOT "The Washington Post".
        mindcrime 13y ago
        I've read that, but thanks for sharing.
        tptacek 13y ago
        I don't understand how you can read that and then state that the standard for sourcing on WP is "the New York Times". The links I provided contradict your claim.
- dom96 13y ago
  It seems to me that the deletion criteria is highly biased. I have given examples of other programming language articles in that AfD which have only a few references or none at all and they are still there. I am very confused as to when a programming language is notable enough to be present on wikipedia. Perhaps you can explain?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    This argument happens so often there's a shorthand for it on WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (ie, WP:OSE). The short answer is, those other articles without references should also be put up for AfD. The intended outcome of the AfD process isn't deletion; it's "delete unless we can find better sources", and proponents of the article are asked to find those sources. Here, the only external source found was a conference presentation by the author of the language, who was himself not WP-notable, at a conference in which most of the other presentations were also about prima facie non-notable languages.
    - ori_b 13y ago
      en·cy·clo·pe·dic enˌsīkləˈpēdik/ adjective 1.comprehensive in terms of information. I personally think that an online encyclopedia should err on the side of being, er, encyclopedic. If an article is clearly cited, the citations are valid, and the quality is sufficient, I don't see a reason to delete. It's not like disk space is prohibitively expensive.
      - ternaryoperator 13y ago
        Well, that's the whole crux of the matter. Since truly comprehensive is not possible, where do you draw the line? Ward Cunningham, who invented the wiki, said this [1] about the fight, which I think provides a pretty good way of deciding what stays, what goes: "I think that Wikipedia has been handling that [issue] fairly well. We could talk to people who are a little closer to the day-to-day Wikipedia and they could probably even correct me on this, but I think the more important notion is notable. The community has to agree upon what the criterion of notability is, and that's only because, there are forms of abuse that arise from non-notable people feigning notability. And that's the fight. And once you start fighting that fight, you find all kinds of stuff that doesn't pass muster that wasn't hurting anybody. And you say, well, in the sense of fairness, I've got to delete it too. And that's a tough thing." [1] http://www.drdobbs.com/240000393?pgno=2 http://www.drdobbs.com/240000393?pgno=2

tptacek 13y ago

Here's the AfD for Nimrod: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nimrod_(programming_language)_(2nd_nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion... Note that at the time this was submitted, all the sourcing for the article came from either web pages from the project itself, or forum posts.

jimktrains2 13y ago
I'm not seeing your point and I don't think you see mine. There are better methods than deletion for handling situations like this.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Like what? Finding better sources? People tried. Are there better sources, or is Nimrod simply not "that" notable yet?
  - asdasf 13y ago
    Like nothing, there is no problem with it. Just leave it alone. This whole "oh god we're the sum of all human knowledge please give us money" tripe is a bit hard to swallow when there's more information getting deleted than being created.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      There are problems with it. The simplest problem is that the whole charter of WP is to cover notable topics with reliable sources; that's the idea behind the project and has been forever. One practical problem with it is that when none of your sources are independent or notable, disinterested parties can't fact-check anything, and the encyclopedia is only as accurate as cliques of interested editors choose to make it. Once again, your argument relitigates the whole concept of WP. You don't have to like the concept, but you can't pretend that their adherence to their own charter is somehow a sign of dysfunction.
      - asdasf 13y ago
        As I said: This whole "oh god we're the sum of all human knowledge please give us money" tripe is a bit hard to swallow when there's more information getting deleted than being created. If they don't want to be judged on that basis, then they need to stop making that claim. Say "we're a tiny subset of information that a particular clique of individuals approves of". Don't say one thing when begging for money and another when deleting useful content.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    Are there better sources, or is Nimrod simply not "that" notable yet? Or we could acknowledge that there are different reasonable standards for "notability" that apply in different contexts. The idea that something isn't "notable" unless it's been written about in the NY Times, WaPo, Financial Times, etc., is just not relevant to (most) software and related projects. And if the Deletionists have "won" and there's no way to get this stuff on Wikipedia, there should be a way to use web-based technology to do something, like, oh, I don't know, some kind of federation / syndication approach where the corresponding article "exists" on Wikipedia but transparently redirects to the corresponding content on programming-languages-wiki.com or whatever. C'mon, we can do better than just deleting stuff because we're adhering to some outdated, archaic notions about what is or isn't "notable".
    - tptacek 13y ago
      That's not the Wikipedia notability standard at all! Here's WP:N: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability There are specific (broadening) rules for some specific article categories, but the general rule is: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. The big thing that trips up hackers in articles about technology is "reliability" of sources, which you can imagine is a topic that has been discussed on WP probably in greater depth than in any venue in the world and perhaps all of human history, some of which coverage is here, in WP:RS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Suffice it to say, the standard is NOT "The Washington Post".
      - mindcrime 13y ago
        I've read that, but thanks for sharing.
        tptacek 13y ago
        I don't understand how you can read that and then state that the standard for sourcing on WP is "the New York Times". The links I provided contradict your claim.
dom96 13y ago
It seems to me that the deletion criteria is highly biased. I have given examples of other programming language articles in that AfD which have only a few references or none at all and they are still there. I am very confused as to when a programming language is notable enough to be present on wikipedia. Perhaps you can explain?
- tptacek 13y ago
  This argument happens so often there's a shorthand for it on WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (ie, WP:OSE). The short answer is, those other articles without references should also be put up for AfD. The intended outcome of the AfD process isn't deletion; it's "delete unless we can find better sources", and proponents of the article are asked to find those sources. Here, the only external source found was a conference presentation by the author of the language, who was himself not WP-notable, at a conference in which most of the other presentations were also about prima facie non-notable languages.
  - ori_b 13y ago
    en·cy·clo·pe·dic enˌsīkləˈpēdik/ adjective 1.comprehensive in terms of information. I personally think that an online encyclopedia should err on the side of being, er, encyclopedic. If an article is clearly cited, the citations are valid, and the quality is sufficient, I don't see a reason to delete. It's not like disk space is prohibitively expensive.
    - ternaryoperator 13y ago
      Well, that's the whole crux of the matter. Since truly comprehensive is not possible, where do you draw the line? Ward Cunningham, who invented the wiki, said this [1] about the fight, which I think provides a pretty good way of deciding what stays, what goes: "I think that Wikipedia has been handling that [issue] fairly well. We could talk to people who are a little closer to the day-to-day Wikipedia and they could probably even correct me on this, but I think the more important notion is notable. The community has to agree upon what the criterion of notability is, and that's only because, there are forms of abuse that arise from non-notable people feigning notability. And that's the fight. And once you start fighting that fight, you find all kinds of stuff that doesn't pass muster that wasn't hurting anybody. And you say, well, in the sense of fairness, I've got to delete it too. And that's a tough thing." [1] http://www.drdobbs.com/240000393?pgno=2 http://www.drdobbs.com/240000393?pgno=2