Hacker News Reader

Comment by 8bitsrule | Hacker News Reader

>Here are some items that are notable

The definition of 'Notable' is open to interpretation; in WP's case there needs to be an author ready to write the article and assert (with cites) that the subject has enough lasting interest.

For example, item: >Publications International v. Meredith Corp ... cookbooks are protected by copyright, the recipes themselves are not.

WP already has an article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Corporation]. While it mentions that Meredith "acquired allrecipes.com" in 2012, looks like no contributor since 2005 (17 years ago) has known about and/or seen fit to mention that 1996 case - let alone write an article.

If it's really notable, there's room between 1994 and 2012 for a paragraph mentioning the case and citing how important the outcome was. But a whole article? Why?

View on HN

The wikipedia entry for jq was deleted because the person who decided it should be deleted thought it was Stephen Dolan's personal project and not a proper programming language, so fuck it, it's gone [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JQ].

I gave up arguing about it. It's truly unbelievable. Yeah, it is Stephen Dolan's personal project, and yes, it deserves a wikipedia entry because it's a fascinating and very popular programming language that now has more than one implementation.

I can't find that previous entry in the edit history, and the talk page history just has one question about Dolan's jq. Where can I see the background you're talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delet...

> Expired PROD, concern was: The only reference is primary, as are all external links. No indication that this is more than a personal project. Article was created by Jordinas, whose contributions all involve adding links to jq from other pages; COI likely.

Thanks for digging this out, because it's an educational example.

Surprisingly, this type of moderation is what made Wikipedia thrive. You can be as flabbergasted as I once was about the process. But exactly those "dumb" criteria make the system work. The admin did his job here and probably on twenty more identical deletions the same day.

There's definitely a deletionist vs. an inclusionist school. And even if most of us agree that either taken to an extreme is problematic, many of us would also argue about where that line should be drawn. And, in practice, a lot depends on how much has been written about them/it in relative accessible literature or even whether someone at some point cared enough to create an article with good citations.

I don't know how to find the talk on the original page and its deletion. All I know is that the editor who deleted it refused to consider all evidence that it wasn't just a personal project, or that it was worthy of a wikipedia page.

My instinct would be that since it's a significant case, folks are interested independent of Meredith

In general, I'd probably be hard put to argue that any SCOTUS case with a written opinion wasn't noteworthy enough to justify an article. And there's almost certainly no shortage of analyses of essentially all cases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com