For as much as I love Wikipedia as it is, I yearn for a return to the days of their old inclusionist[1] policy.
Stop the destruction! End this dumb rule and make Wikipedia truly open to all.
Same game in a one language can be extremely notable and well known to everyone, while in other it'd get deleted without a trace.
Sometimes it feels like "racism" based on countries (countrism?)
I'd call it national chauvinism.
Generally not. There is a separate process called "oversight" [1] which behaves the way you're describing, but it can only be invoked by a very small number of privileged users, and is only used in extreme cases.
There's a place called Ksar Ouled Soltane [0] and I couldn't quite figure out if it was a film site or not. The locals assured me it was, but there were conflicting reports online. I saw that it was listed on Wikipedia, but when I went through the history, I saw that someone tried to remove it [1]. Unfortunately their removal was reverted and their source [2] wasn't considered good enough.
That said, I read their article and I'm much more inclined to believe them than the wikipedia editors.
It was the first time I ever encountered something like this in the wild.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ksar_Ouled_Soltane
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dbavandy
[2] https://galaxytours.com/research/ksar-ouled-soltane-debunkin...
It is telling that he never responded to Davin Dbavandy question about why it is not a reliable source.
One thing that always stood out to me was how till 2014 you could find many references on wikipedia to pre-2014 attempts from Crimea to secede from Ukraine.
"Crimea" (quoted, as it may refer to different groups/leaderships in Crimea) tried to split from Ukraine twice already during Soviet times.
But this whole thing got edited away in years across dozens of articles.
I think there's a significant nuance between the two narratives.
Unfortunately, it seems so ossified that that work can only be done within Wikipedia (notable article, standards, etc).
A far more reasonable approach would have been to have CommonPedia... and then regularly pull qualifying information into Wikipedia.
This is called "The Web". You’re free to write whatever you want, it’s just not on Wikipedia.
> it's not like they're limited by the size of a bound encyclopedia.
No, but articles still require maintainance, so it’s false to say that just because this is "in the cloud" you can have an infinite number of articles.
Her legal name had appeared in some public court filings, and some user had added it to her Wikipedia page with the reference.
Someone else (purportedly one of her co-stars) had requested removal.
A Wikipedia editor then got involved, and refused to budge from the position the original actress was notable enough to merit inclusion of her legal name.
Cue months of back-and-forth deletions and reversions.
Finally, I think a year later, someone quietly edited the legal name out and it stuck.
Sometimes people with a little power are the greatest assholes. Probably because they sought the little power.
I don't know about this case, but it seems entirely reasonable that to argue for including the name, or not.
Plenty of public personas have aliases they wish to be known by, but their Wikipedia article prominently notes their real name.
So by definition it's not exposing any information you can't find in other public sources.
Whether it's notable and something that should be included is another matter.
In any case, I'm saying that if you look at the articles for Madonna, Bono, Jenna Jameson, Marilyn Manson etc. you'll find their real name displayed prominently.
We can't form our own opinion in this case, as the GP is deliberately keeping the specific article in question hidden.
But in general this seems like a thing two editors could reasonably disagree about.
For the section in question, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY