Let's create a Wikipedia page for Rich Hickey(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Let's create a Wikipedia page for Rich Hickey
https://twitter.com/sferik/status/328308095463870464
4 comments
How can you overcome politics like this?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There are no independent reliable secondary sources. His keynotes or videos may be very popular but they do not add to notability unless they get reported in the media. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)"
"...Oh my god! The article has a photo in the lead! You know what, I also have a giant photo in Facebook. Still, common sense suggests that the man is not covered in RS and therefore there is nothing to post in Wikipedia, anonymous. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)"
"Linux Journal is a reputable source. The guy really is notable. Let's at the very least agree to keep the article for the time being. What do you say? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)"
"Merry-go-round. Again, there was no coverage of Hickey himself. Hickey cannot inherit Clojure's notability. As for "this guy really is notable" I suggest that you read which arguments to avoid at AfD. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
If folks like Artem want to argue that Rich Hickey can not inherit Clojure's notability, then how can you get a page created about Hickey?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There are no independent reliable secondary sources. His keynotes or videos may be very popular but they do not add to notability unless they get reported in the media. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)"
"...Oh my god! The article has a photo in the lead! You know what, I also have a giant photo in Facebook. Still, common sense suggests that the man is not covered in RS and therefore there is nothing to post in Wikipedia, anonymous. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)"
"Linux Journal is a reputable source. The guy really is notable. Let's at the very least agree to keep the article for the time being. What do you say? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)"
"Merry-go-round. Again, there was no coverage of Hickey himself. Hickey cannot inherit Clojure's notability. As for "this guy really is notable" I suggest that you read which arguments to avoid at AfD. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
If folks like Artem want to argue that Rich Hickey can not inherit Clojure's notability, then how can you get a page created about Hickey?
That type of behavior is why I stopped contributing to Wikipedia years ago.
There are way too many people there who get their jollies from deleting other people's hard work (probably because they're not capable of creating anything themselves). It's a form of vandalism, IMO.
There are way too many people there who get their jollies from deleting other people's hard work (probably because they're not capable of creating anything themselves). It's a form of vandalism, IMO.
[deleted]
> His keynotes or videos may be very popular but they do not add to notability unless they get reported in the media.
> These sources are not notable themselves.
> Magazine with editor? Good. But merely saying "it is notable" is not enough.
But merely saying "it is not notable" is enough, right?
> The article is about Clojure and adds little to Hickey's notability.
> No different. No coverage of person = no article.
Fun quotes. I love watching editors twist rules to match their own interpretations even after being clearly refuted time and time again, as well as clearly violating the very rules that they refer to. Wikipedia editing has apparently devolved into politics for the sake of politics.
> These sources are not notable themselves.
> Magazine with editor? Good. But merely saying "it is notable" is not enough.
But merely saying "it is not notable" is enough, right?
> The article is about Clojure and adds little to Hickey's notability.
> No different. No coverage of person = no article.
Fun quotes. I love watching editors twist rules to match their own interpretations even after being clearly refuted time and time again, as well as clearly violating the very rules that they refer to. Wikipedia editing has apparently devolved into politics for the sake of politics.
Hickey has done things besides Clojure that are fairly notable, for instance the "Hickey functor".
Edit: http://www.tutok.sk/fastgl/callback.html
Edit: http://www.tutok.sk/fastgl/callback.html
[deleted]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion...