> 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 it doesn't surprise me that people continue to ask, like here, why WP can't be more ambitious.
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.
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).
"“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.
> 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'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 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 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.
>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.
> 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.
Furthermore, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An_article_about_you...
Thanks for linking that essay from wikipedia. People seem to forget the burden of fame/infamy.
Storage is cheap and I'd rather have an article marked as poor, short, stub but with some reference than no article.
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 it doesn't surprise me that people continue to ask, like here, why WP can't be more ambitious.
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.
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).
Storage isn't the expensive part of running a large store of information.
"“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.”"
This is the discussion for the deletion of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bio...
> 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.
consensus just means some clique approves, and the dissenter lost patience to continue debating the issue. it's ignoble.
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.
> 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'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
> It's like your highschool having a wall of notable graduates, and having your likeness taken down
So, basically inconsequential stuff only the juvenile should worry about? Agreed.
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.
"up and coming" does not exist. you either meet the wikipedia notability criteria or you do not.
> How entitled must one be to assume they are owed a page in Wikipedia?
FIFA Peace Prize level of entitled at least, it seems
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premio_de_la_Paz_de_la_FIFA
It’s a not very well kept secret that many of these pages for less-than-notable people were created by the person themselves or their “publicist.”
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.
https://web.archive.org/web/20261026155018/www.wired.com/sto...
I'd hate to be the last Guy Standing on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversie...
>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]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversie...
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.
to desire and then mourn the loss of a personal wikipedia page constitutes a biblical amount of ego