> A Wikipedia editor can tag an article for deletion, and unless satisfactory edits are made within a certain timeframe, the page will disappear. Simeonovski didn’t do this—he referred the article for debate among his fellow editors.
Only in uncontroversial cases. In most cases, there is a debate where consensus is formed on if there is enough information about a person / topic to warrant an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is struggling as is with the amount of content. An article cannot be written for every person under the son.
> Wikipedia pages, for better or worse, matter to people. To be included is a validation of a life.
There are billionares without wikipedia articles. There are people who have saved thousands of people from death without wikipedia articles. The only thing that matters in getting a wikipedia article is sufficient coverage by reputable 3rd party sources, such that there is enough material to write an accurate, informative, and neutral article. You should not derive your worth by this metric.
But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a reference for all knowledge.
Thus, it draws the line at things and people that are notable.
Maybe you think it shouldn't be an encyclopedia, but should be some larger project that indexes every product UPC, every person born, and every website ever registered, but that's not what it is.
And the primary obstacle here isn't storage. It's quality. You need a sufficient number of eyeballs and editors per page to ensure that the crowdsourcing is actually passing a minimal quality bar. Millions of short, low-quality articles means millions of opportunity for spam, abuse, and other problems.
I was active in Wikipedia from 2002, and there was a lot of idealism back then among editors that it would be a "reference for all knowledge". Those wishing for a more constrained site eventually won the day, and they had good arguments like yours. But even today, you can find certain pop-culture lore, for example, covered in insane depth on Wikipedia; not everything was sent away to Fandom wikis as Wikipedia's policies evolved. So, it doesn't surprise me that people continue to ask, like here, why WP can't be more ambitious.
> you can find certain pop-culture lore, for example, covered in insane depth on Wikipedia; not everything was sent away to Fandom wikis
But if the pop culture lore has insane depth then it’s probably valuable enough to keep, yeah? If it has a few limited snippets and very few people writing about it as sources, then it’s a lot more questionable
Insanely deep lore is a dime a dozen these days. Every other fantasy book series has one. Every other video game has one. Not to mention fanfics, especially shared universe fanfics. Being deep lore should be a reason to delete, not to add a page.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Mr. Tik-tok from Oz to have his own Wikipedia page. He's less notable than, say, Knight Artorias, and I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue Knight Artorias deserves one.
Then again, neither does the Great Grey Wolf Sif, yet here we are.
The only reason that it wasn't more ambitious back then was because they wanted to be thought of as a grown-up encyclopedia and that meant aping Britannica. Britannica's dead, no one will remember it in 50 years, but now what was a capricious strategy is unquestionable dogma.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the only one left, and it gets to define what an encyclopedia will be to everyone from this day forward. Excuses for my it must limit itself are inane.
Wikipedia has other concerns, such as maintaining a neutral pov (avoiding the perception of advertising/endorsement, and likewise avoiding being a platform for libel and the lawsuits that come with that).
Wikipedia isn't a database. There shouldn't be a Wikipedia page about every single grain of sand, and neither should there be one about every single person. If you aren't notable enough to have a bunch of journalists write articles about you, then what you are doing isn't impactful enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry.
The disambiguation page of "John Smith" already contains 287 people. You're looking for the John Smith who was a US Navy sailor and received the Medal of Honor in the second half of the 19th century? There's three of them with a page already, and they have to be distinguished by year of birth. No need to make that page hundreds of thousands of non-noteworthy people long, having to be distinguished by SSN.
I've agreed with occasional deletions. Without that mechanism you just get self-promotional content. That stuff still makes it, but I think it makes Wikipedia poorer to be a Forbes 500,000 Under 500,000 explicitly. It's probably worth it to run a separate deletopedia that preserves the content but I don't think Wikipedia should be exhaustive. It's pretty good at only containing sufficiently notable things. One could argue that more things should move to fandom-style wikis and I think perhaps the Pokemon are better on bulbapedia etc.
We don't have a neat interwiki search yet that makes federation work well, but in time perhaps something like that will develop.
The deleted articles aren't actually removed from the storage, they just get delisted. Articles get removed because there isn't enough reputable sources to create an article.
Wikipedia would rather you create a blog post or any other method of getting information on the internet than to host unverifiable information under their trusted brand name.
"“Even though dodgeball is not considered a mainstream sport, competing at the highest level in any sport is a significant accomplishment,” Burton told me. “Given the ongoing attempts to erase transgender people, along with infringements on our rights and our ability to live normal lives, this action is not surprising.”"
Do you see any attempts at erasure here? It looks to me like the process of consensus working well. Original nominator makes a well reasoned but poorly researched claim, leading to article improvement, a clear establishment that Savannah is indeed notable enough for inclusion, and the original nominator learning something new about the deletions process.
> There is, when you look for it, a careless and cocky tone that can creep into the verdicts of Wikipedia editors who have been doing the job for a long time. “This guy is a nobody. Delete him.” “I’ve got more followers on Instagram than he does.” “All we have here are stand-up comedy, opinion columns, being a guest or collaborator on some non-notable podcasts … This is more or less every twentieth person who lives in NYC.”
This tone could be improved, however looking at the surrounding context, I imagine the editors participating in these discussions are frustrated by the hundreds of articles on obviously non-notable people made by themselves or their publicist with no regard for the notability policies. I do not have access to the deleted pages as I am not an admin, however I speak from experience participating in many many AfDs and everything I've seen described in this wired article is consistent with my experience. Here are the pertinent discussions that the author fails to link, perhaps because it undermines their point:
> One month after Simeonovski nominated Dimoska’s biography for deletion, he lost. The page was kept. “Given the bludgeoning, canvassing, and sockpuppetry evident here, this is a no consensus closure without prejudice against speedy renomination,” wrote an editor in a determination. “The arguments to delete here are stronger on the merits, but sufficient reasoned opposition exists that I do not see a consensus for deletion.” Obstinacy won the day, though Dimoska’s page now carries a disclaimer that it contains “promotional content.”
Again, seems as if the process is working as intended.
Deletion discussions frequently span weeks and sometimes months with dozens or hundreds of people. You are also right that consensus can fail. The article fails to produce an obvious case of it failing to support their argument, nor a suggestion as to what a better process could be.
there's loads of discussion and proposals about better process. For one, recognizing "consensus" for what it is. anonymous mob / clique decision making.
This took me down a rabbithole of randoms who have wikipedia pages. "Spacetrail" who created Dimoska's page also created one for Rajinder Singh Tumber who seems completely unremarkable but has somehow wangled an MBE, presumably due to his ability for self-promotion.
> Every day, Wikipedia biographies of living people are flagged for deletion because the subjects are not “notable” enough. How do these poor souls take the news?
How entitled must one be to assume they are owed a page in Wikipedia?
I don't think it has to be entitlement. It could be a sign that you were "up and coming" and now you're not. I can see how that'd still sting a bit even to have external validation of your own anxieties.
I'm not sure it's coming from entitlement.
It's like your highschool having a wall of notable graduates, and having your likeness taken down while you are still alive. It's a negative insulting signal
I can confirm this. I am not proud of it because, not only does it break Wikipedia policy but was unethical and done for an unethical person, but one of the first tasks I was given at my first salaried job was to make a wikipedia page for the boss (he said that his publicist told him to get one done). The safeguards at Wikipedia almost held, but he had me battle the editors for weeks until it finally got done. I left a couple months later because he kept doing (and asking me do) unethical things, and wish I had the wisdom and courage then to have said no and quit on day one.
I remember being in school and trying to update the school's page. Some greasy editor blocked it, because I didn't have a source. The source was the fact that I was physically inside the school. Not good enough for them, they left the wildly outdated article to rot instead.
>Beginning February 2015,[286] there was an ongoing edit war over the image caption for Guy Standing's English Wikipedia article. The debate was over if the word "sitting" should be added to the caption, since he was sitting in the photo.[287] A screenshot of the caption describing him as "Guy Standing sitting" has become a viral internet meme.[286] At one point in the edit war, the caption read "Guy Standing on a chair."[288] As of 2026, the consensus is to exclude the word "sitting".[286][287] In May 2022, Standing was invited to the American podcast Reply All to discuss the "Guy Standing sitting" joke.[286]
Some great writing here. The irony of the guy campaigning to delete a personal page having had his own page deleted is poignant. It's hard not to read something like identification with the aggressor into this.
Only in uncontroversial cases. In most cases, there is a debate where consensus is formed on if there is enough information about a person / topic to warrant an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is struggling as is with the amount of content. An article cannot be written for every person under the son.
> Wikipedia pages, for better or worse, matter to people. To be included is a validation of a life.
There are billionares without wikipedia articles. There are people who have saved thousands of people from death without wikipedia articles. The only thing that matters in getting a wikipedia article is sufficient coverage by reputable 3rd party sources, such that there is enough material to write an accurate, informative, and neutral article. You should not derive your worth by this metric.
Furthermore, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An_article_about_you...