If you're like me (i.e. you're a musician and you aren't famous but there's a Wikipedia page about you because, well, why not), you should check your Wikipedia page. Mine was flagged with a deletion notice. Reason: I am a "non-notable musician."
It's been five days since the message was put up, and it also says that after five days, the article can be deleted without notice if appropriate changes are not made. So what did I do? I added the word "notable" to every single sentence. What did they do? When I came back three hours later to make this post, they had already reverted it back, with a message sent to the IP I'm using saying that the edits were not constructive. The deletion warning is still up.
I don't care if I have a page on Wikipedia; it was fun while it lasted. I also expected that response to my absurd "fix" of the article to fit the guideline (although I didn't expect it so soon). The question stands. Why, Wikipedia? Why is this in your guidelines? Who are we hurting? Is it busy work for your employees? What makes a musician "notable"? Being "famous," being "signed," going on tour? Is it pressure from the major labels? (Probably not, and god, I hope not.) Or is it an attempt to define some subjective, impossible-to-agree-upon definition of "notability"? What is the game?
If you're like me with the exception that you do care about your page on Wikipedia, go check yourself out before they wreck yourself. Meanwhile, I may take to referring to various musicians as "notable" or "non-notable" from here on out.
My Trusted MOGs
I made a Wikipedia article for you a few years ago and they deleted it for the same reason. Buncha fascists, I say.
My Trusted MOGs
I'm checking out _On/Playing_, from the archive link.
My Trusted MOGs
"buncha fascists" is right.
My Trusted MOGs
wow - AR actually made a Wikipedia article for you a while ago - I say, that if someone else is writing about you, then you are probably "worthy of note" - the MW definition - but really what is Wiki getting on about - ...? that the throngs need to know who you are, or that the masses simply have access to you...? - wait a minute, isn't that the very nature of the internet? Perhaps they meant the archaic definition "efficient or capable in performance of housewifely duties" - in which case, you might not really mind, say, not being notable.
Who gets to decide?
Here's another one: "This article does not cite any references or sources. (January 2008) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed."
How do they verify - by just Googling and finding it on _any webpage...? or does "reliable" mean some mainstream media outlet... and by the looks of most of them lately, most could hardly be called reliable...
My Trusted MOGs
Well, to me you're not non-notable. Quite the opposite. You're notable. To console you, I'll mention that Sylvester Stallone once said that the more famous you get, the stronger gravity gets.
My Trusted MOGs
I could see that Wikipedia would want to limit pages being created by and for peoples' friends - merely for yucks, mind you - but it's passing up a unique opportunity to support developing or independent artists. Quite short-sighted...and I'm sure Wikipedia has bigger fish to fry than "non-notable" musicians.
My Trusted MOGs
love it
My Trusted MOGs
I also see that Wikipedia says...
Trivia Sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidlines. The article could be improved by integrating relevent items and removing inappropriate ones.
Bah Humbug! Everyone loves the trivia sections, I do at least.
Insert Joe Cocker song "You are so notable....to me" here
My Trusted MOGs
the bastards finally deleted it, I guess...
i was gonna go, to give you some traffic, and to look around!
My Trusted MOGs