
Wikipedia doesn't want you - LeoPanthera
https://medium.com/@danklass/wikipedia-doesn-t-want-you-b0aa00e8e97
======
ErikBjare
All I hear is someone complaining that the articles they wrote about
themselves and their friend (for self-promotion purposes) got removed because
they didn't even glance at the introductory guide to writing articles.

> Do not create pages about yourself, your company, your band, or your
> friends; pages that advertise; personal essays; or other articles you would
> not find in an encyclopedia.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article)

> Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability:
> Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography,
> product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an
> encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people
> independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author,
> inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that
> they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus
> upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected
> to the topic matter.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Self-
prom...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Self-
promotion_and_publicity)

He further makes ridiculous claims going to the extreme opposite of
deletionism, not recognizing at all the benefits of only having notable
content on Wikipedia.

> When pages on Wikipedia are nominated for removal, Deletionpedia
> automatically pulls the page and adds it to their wiki. Brilliant. It stands
> to reason, given enough time, Deletionpedia will surpass Wikipedia in
> usefulness and Wikipedia will die.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for inclusionism but I don't like it when you
write articles about yourself and your friends for self-promotion.

~~~
DanBC
> the benefits of only having notable content on Wikipedia.

If the rules were a bit less arbitrary and were applied a bit more
consistently you'd probably have less complaining about deletionism. When
talking about deletionism / inclusionism it's important to remember that
stamina of participants is often as important as notability in whether the
article stays / goes.

Also, you're being a little bit unfair about his friend.

> > Lance was already mentioned several times on Wikipedia, so getting the
> page rolling really just took some cutting and pasting. “American
> podcaster,” “LA Podcasters,” “Cambridge University,” blah, blah, blah. Links
> to websites, blogs, press clipping, etc. Click “Save.” I’ve done it.

His friend was notable enough to have already been mentioned on Wikipedia.

~~~
jo909
> His friend was notable enough to have already been mentioned on Wikipedia.

The criteria to have an article about a specific person: there are other
articles focusing on that specific person in other publications.

The criertia to be mentioned in other contexts on Wikipedia: there are
reliable sources that he had a notable role _in that context_.

Edit: I think thats a better example:

If you climbed a certain mountain as the first person ever: probably you are
mentioned on the article about that mountain. If you never did anything else
of note, why do you need you own page too?

If you are the first person to ever in succession climb all the summits (and
others took note of that), you probably have you own article but are not
mentioned on every single summits article, maybe on none of them.

~~~
panglott
His complaint was that Wikipedia's definition of "notability" is arbitrary,
dogmatic, and inconsistently applied. Explicating the dogma doesn't convince
many people that the dogma is correct.

------
NickHaflinger
You're on a losing game trying to argue your case with the Wikipedicians. Lets
see some notable characters that do past the notability test:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpongeBob_SquarePants_(charact...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpongeBob_SquarePants_\(character\))

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pee-
wee_Herman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pee-wee_Herman)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurch_(The_Addams_Family)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurch_\(The_Addams_Family\))

~~~
dTal
My favorite:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_(Sesame_Street)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_\(Sesame_Street\))

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_(Sesame_Street)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_\(Sesame_Street\))

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_and_Ernie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_and_Ernie)

------
mamon
"Wikipedia standards" sounds like an oxymoron to me. Many such standards are
really just biases, political or other, and the quality of information is
usually low. The only valuable section of many articles is "References"

------
scottmcdot
No Lance Anderson in Gaijin42 deletion log [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gaijin42/CSD_log](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gaijin42/CSD_log)

