wikipedia campaign to remove Erik and Faz

The notability guidelines of wikipedia state "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below". It is difficult to argue a objective measure of notability - most of what is in this thread is subjective.
The proposed deletion (AFAIK) is not based on anything to do with "page hits". It is purely someones point of view. Is there a list of wiki pages "hits" from lowest to highest?
 
Kian said:
They choose to draw a line so that their website isn't cluttered with 92 billion entries, and that line needs to be drawn somewhere.
Click to expand...
Except that their website IS cluttered. It's not even difficult to find examples of unimportant historical figures, irrelevant lists, or locations that only an atlas publisher would have heard of.

And besides, this is an era of 2-terabyte hard drives that cost $80 each. Nobody is gonna be hurt by a few extra 10KB articles.
 
Not to be rude, but I'm guessing you didn't try researching for your answer first. I'm guilty of that too, though.

http://stats.grok.se/en/top

http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/Feliks Zemdegs

http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/Erik Akkersdijk

You'll notice that I set the date for 201012 in both Feliks and Erik's pages. That's because for whatever reason, the "Top" page is showing 201012 instead of 201101. I just wanted to keep the results consistent. But take notice how the page has 6k views for Jan 2011:

http://stats.grok.se/en/201101/Feliks Zemdegs



qqwref said:
And besides, this is an era of 2-terabyte hard drives that cost $80 each. Nobody is gonna be hurt by a few extra 10KB articles.
Click to expand...

:tu
 
Last edited:
fatboyxpc said:
Not to be rude, but I'm guessing you didn't try researching for your answer first. I'm guilty of that too, though.

http://stats.grok.se/en/top

http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/Feliks Zemdegs

http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/Erik Akkersdijk
Click to expand...

Since you apparently think Google trends isn't a valid indication of popularity, (because clearly some guy out there must be searching Faz's name 24/7 and single handedly shifting the search volume statistics,) let's use your link. Faz's Wikipedia article search volume still blows away everyone on that competitive eating/bowling/darts/canoeing list. I'm too lazy to make hyperlinks I'm sure you're all competent enough to check yourself.
 
Last edited:
goatseforever said:
Since you apparently think Google trends isn't a valid indication of popularity
Click to expand...

Whoa buddy, I never once said I thought that. I just stated that we don't know how many unique searches there are for the given phrase(s). If I type in "Feliks Zemdegs" to get to his wikipedia article easily, but say I do that 10 times in one month, that should only count for 1 hit on Google trends (not 10). I am only one person that knows the name, not 10. Just because I find it easier to let google supply me the wikipedia link (open new tab, type his name, hit enter, then enter again; opposed to typing in the link to wikipedia.org then typing his name -- it's just less typing), doesn't mean that he is anymore popular (and if you've paid any attention to this thread or the Wikipedia Notability page, you'd understand that being popular isn't the only (or even necessarily one piece of) criteria to make a given article notable).

fazdad said:
And if the worlds encyclopedia decides that notability is based purely on popularity then we are indeed a doomed species.
Click to expand...

:tu
 
Last edited:
fatboyxpc said:
Whoa buddy, I never once said I thought that. I just stated that we don't know how many unique searches there are for the given phrase(s). If I type in "Feliks Zemdegs" to get to his wikipedia article easily, but say I do that 10 times in one month, that should only count for 1 hit on Google trends (not 10). I am only one person that knows the name, not 10. Just because I find it easier to let google supply me the wikipedia link (open new tab, type his name, hit enter, then enter again; opposed to typing in the link to wikipedia.org then typing his name -- it's just less typing), doesn't mean that he is anymore popular (and if you've paid any attention to this thread or the Wikipedia Notability page, you'd understand that being popular isn't the only (or even necessarily one piece of) criteria to make a given article notable).
Click to expand...

EDIT: This thread is about to get massively derailed so I'm going to put a stop to this. My point was, you said in regards to Google Trends:

"you can't necessarily count one phrased being searched as that phrase in general being more popular. If the google trend merely counts the number of times each phrase is googled, that means one person alone can submit that phrase countless times."

Then you turn around and post a site that tracks how many times a phrase or word is searched on Wikipedia. I found that puzzling. And I'm not going to get into the popularity vs. notability debate because guess what not a single **** is given by me. That is all.
 
Last edited:
If you could what I said there, why couldn't you notice that I submitted something that fazdad wanted? I in no part used it as an argument, I merely linked it for him since he asked for it.

I find it quite interesting that you wanted to put a stop to it, yet continued to post about it.
 
Wiki people are bastards. When I first had the WR (9.77) someone made a page, but it was removed after a few days because of.... well probably 'not interesting enough'. I did some more WR's and finally the 7.08, someone made a page again. Since then it has only been expanding with info about 2 TV shows and my youtube channel. I have the feeling people just delete stuff from it too randomly. Anyway, when the English one is removed I still have my 8 other pages ROFL
Back to serious: I can (sadly) understand why mine would be removed since I don't really play a role as a top cuber anymore. Faz' would be weird though since he just dominates half of all events. I'd say lets edit both pages to contain more info and more media appearance details (out of principle I never edit my own though...) and hope for the best. The more wiki pages about speedcubing the better.
 
goatseforever said:
EDIT: This thread is about to get massively derailed so I'm going to put a stop to this. My point was, you said in regards to Google Trends:

"you can't necessarily count one phrased being searched as that phrase in general being more popular. If the google trend merely counts the number of times each phrase is googled, that means one person alone can submit that phrase countless times."

Then you turn around and post a site that tracks how many times a phrase or word is searched on Wikipedia. I found that puzzling. And I'm not going to get into the popularity vs. notability debate because guess what not a single **** is given by me. That is all.
Click to expand...

Anyway I have helped revive the game by the legendary frustration of the cube and see the competition reborn. Without recognition or when he was almost dead, big difference. The 3x3 is more popular but the corner is the base of the cube. Speed is not the only way to display excellence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voRzWNQueNE
 
Gaétan Guimond said:
Anyway I have helped revive the game by the legendary frustration of the cube and see the competition reborn. Without recognition or when he was almost dead, big difference. The 3x3 is more popular but the corner is the base of the cube. Speed is not the only way to display excellence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voRzWNQueNE
Click to expand...

Somebody set up us the cube.
Main inhibitor turn on.
All your cube are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
For great justice.
 
Since Wikipedia is edited by people, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those editors looking at the cubing articles are from the slice of the population who are still of the opinion that cubing is "that 80's fad that died." That would explain a lot of the animosity toward the articles.

Also, my article was slated for deletion a few years ago for not being notable enough. Some people added in some media appearance and online site appearance like College Humor and Digg for some of my old videos and the issue was dropped by Wikipedia. Check out the discussion on my page to see what was said. I will be honest that I added in some of the info :-s but at least we know that increasing the descriptions of media appearances does seem to take your article off that chopping block. I say everyone try to add relevant media appearances and online/print article links to both Faz and Erik's article. It could be what saves them from the deletion.
 
Chris, I'm not sure if you've seen, but the pages for the articles being up for deletion include a good amount of links pertaining to media appearances and what not. I do think though (as stated in one of my earlier posts) that these types of links need to be added to their main pages, not just their articles for deletion pages.
 
I created a wikipedia page for my mum ages ago. Its 3 lines long and still there.
 
fazdad said:
And if the worlds encyclopedia decides that notability is based purely on popularity then we are indeed a doomed species.
Click to expand...
Notability shouldn't be based *purely* on popularity, but it would be very hard to argue, using an intuitive definition of "notable", that a very popular thing is NOT notable.

cmhardw said:
Since Wikipedia is edited by people, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those editors looking at the cubing articles are from the slice of the population who are still of the opinion that cubing is "that 80's fad that died." That would explain a lot of the animosity toward the articles.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I'm sure there are lots of people out there who think cubing is still some dead fad that nobody tries, and that the "world champion" is probably just some kid who got lucky or something. But hey, I have similar disdain for certain the real sports, and I wouldn't propose to delete articles just because of that. Many Wikipedians are bureaucrats pure and simple, not reasonable or nice but simply adhering to rules with their own set of imagined loopholes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

2x2MasterYT
Yiheng has a Wikipedia Page!
Replies
19
Views
3,204
Jason Tzeng
Jason Tzeng
Noob's Cubes
  • Poll Poll
Need help with Tymon Kolasinski wikipedia page
Replies
10
Views
1,130
ProStar
ProStar
Specs112
Cubing on Wikipedia
Replies
4
Views
1,583
tx789
tx789
David Zemdegs
Updating competition results on Wikipedia
Replies
0
Views
918
David Zemdegs
David Zemdegs
DavidWoner
Wikipedia using unsolved cubes to indicate stubs.
Replies
17
Views
2,781
DavidWoner
DavidWoner
Back
Top