
Rich Hickey's Wikipedia page nominated for deletion - cemerick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rich_Hickey
======
someone13
I find it kind of strange just how dedicated "Artem Karimov" is to getting
this page deleted.

In addition, the rule that's quoted, "Notability is inherited", is a bit
strange - people are notable because of things they do. For example, I doubt
that J.K. Rowling would be considered "notable" if it wasn't for the fact that
she created Harry Potter. I fail to see why the same argument can't be applied
here.

However, I shall end with a disclaimer: I don't edit Wikipedia at all, and I'm
sure there are nuances that I'm missing. Still strange, though.

~~~
hackinthebochs
"Notability is not inherited" makes perfect sense. Doing something notable
doesn't make you notable. Doing many notable things might make you notable.
Doing something that is supremely notable might make you notable. Clojure
clearly doesn't qualify.

~~~
warmfuzzykitten
I call bullshit. Please remove your wiki page for Grace Metalious. She never
did anything but write a few trashy novels. I came up with that example in
about two seconds. I'm pretty sure I could go on all day. Notability _is_
inherited. Except of course in the case of Wikipedia editors, whose
contributions are minute and often negative.

~~~
hackinthebochs
Are those novels notable? Then by my definition she would gain notability for
that.

As a general rule, if the only _interesting_ information about a person is
that they did X, then they do not deserve a page of their own. It adds _no
useful knowledge_.

Now that I think of it, that is really what this is about. Does having a page
about this guy that basically says he created clojure add anything useful to
the world? It's clear in this case it doesn't. At least nothing that couldn't
be said in the clojure article.

Knowledge is about organization (it could be argued that knowledge literally
is organizing information). Does having an article about a guy whose sole
notable accomplishment is clojure help to increase knowledge, ie increase
organization of information? No, there is nothing to organize. For your Grace
Metalious example, having a page that organizes her notable accomplishments
_is_ in fact adding knowledge to the world.

------
scythe
Clojure is new. Hickey's status as the designer of a major and taken-seriously
programming language is new. My knowledge of Rich Hickey is itself new -- I
started seeing articles about the guy about a year ago. New means that most of
the things that will eventually be written about Hickey and Clojure have not
yet been written. Clojure has a future, but Wikipedia is about the present.

The current Wikipedia article on Rich Hickey doesn't actually tell me a whole
lot about him. He invented Clojure, he's a software developer (logical
consequence of the preceding), he "has worked on scheduling systems, broadcast
automation, audio analysis and fingerprinting, database design, yield
management, exit poll systems, and machine listening." -- where? how? with
whom? All of these are _potentially_ notable, but none are when they're
shotgunned at the reader.

Of the sources there, _Code Quarterly_ might qualify as a respectable
publication, if it takes off -- it _too_ is new.

Keep in mind that, say, moot, inventor of 4chan (more famous than Clojure)
didn't have his own Wikipedia article until he started Canvas. Until as
recently as June 2011, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Poole>
redirected to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan> and it was only moot's
ascendance as an entrepreneur which changed that. Wikipedia notability relies
on secondary source coverage, and secondary source coverage requires time to
occur.

------
dreamux
Can someone explain the rationale behind Wikipedia deletionists? I don't
understand their motives.

~~~
breckinloggins
It depends on the person. Different people have different motivations for
wanting an article deleted:

\- Purism with respect to Wikipedia policies (I would place this example in
this category)

\- Ideological commitment to notions about what an encyclopedia "should" be

\- Personal vendettas

\- ...and so on

------
pinko
I have to admit being somewhat surprised to find a concise, interesting debate
where neither side is being particularly dumb or unreasonable.

Of course by the time someone on HN reads this and follows the link, this may
have changed.

------
mukyu
Posting things like this is frowned upon by WP:CANVAS[1] and I would wager is
generally counter-productive to actually saving an article. The goal of these
discussions is to determine if there is consensus[2] that the article should
be deleted because of the English Wikipedia's policies[3]. Having a bunch of
people that are not familiar with how things work on en.wiki bring very little
light, but a lot of heat and generally are just ignored by the closer of the
discussion.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANVAS>

[2] Wikipedia has a somewhat odd definition of this and it varies greatly on
what process/discussion is taking place and whomever ends up making the
decision. Ostensibly, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus>
describes it, but nailing what it really means in practice is much more
difficult.

[3] There are far too many to list. However, two of the most important ideas
are that Wikipedia neutrally presents what other citable, good sources say.

~~~
cemerick
FWIW, I didn't submit to attempt to save the article. Wikipedia, deletionism
and inclusionism on the same, and Clojure are all of varying interest to the
HN populace, so it seemed like an interesting nugget of info.

