internetter

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.

Comment · 2 days ago

> 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...

Comment · 2 days ago

What is the battery life of your windows laptop which is half the price? What is the screen quality? What is the single and multi core performance? Does it beat even the macbook neo on even one of these metrics? At the same cost?

Comment · 2 days ago

In what regard are they falling behind? There are lighter laptops, sure. Are there lighter laptops with the same performance, or the same battery, the same ergonomics, the same build quality, or the same screen quality?

Comment · 2 days ago

Have you ever used a Mac? It is by and far the best laptop on average, and it keeps getting better.

Comment · 4 days ago

Anybody can exit their contract by selling their contract to an interested party

Comment · 4 days ago

Why must prediction markets have a predefined end date?

Comment · 4 days ago

> Playing the stock market is a loosing game. It is gambling where all the rules and all the odds are stacked in favor of a handful of people who gamble for a living

Indeed. And yet opting out is an even bigger loss.