An important factor that I think a lot of people are missing here, is that the page was created 5 days ago. Nobody is talking about deleting a page because they just now decided they didn’t like the guy, they are talking about whether or not the page was worth creating in the first place.
Obviously now Wikipedia has decided to keep the page, but seriously guys try putting a little effort into dodging the rage-bait.
Why would any truthful information not be worth creating? Storage is incredibly cheap nowadays and search engines are amazing at filtering out low viewed pages so it wouldn’t obscure more popular/useful pages either
Especially when they receive standing ovation from several governments and a slew of controversy ensues in the media. Wikipedia has articles on random ass chemicals that surely only 2 guys will ever refer to, and local disasters or earthquakes or phenomenon that no one ever talks about. But yes, I do ageee that the rage bait is very enticing to users here
Because it makes some pathetic Nazi schmuck famous for no reason. People have had to go through Wikipedia and delete all sorts of crap honoring and glorifying Nazis. Having a Wikipedia page for a guy who’s only claim to fame is being a Nazi who lived a long time and got invited to parliament isn’t really enough justification. Having his own article suggests he’s a notable person, which he isn’t.
Well it’s not really about him it’s more about the event which is definitely notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page
Dude caused an international crisis and you don’t think he deserves a Wikipedia page?
The bar for getting a Wikipedia page is extremely low and the guy easily surpassed it.
I don’t think you read what I said, people here are complaining about “deleting” or “white-washing” history to push a narrative. Which is not what happened, they were simply deciding whether or not new content on the site met their moderation standards. I’m struggling a bit to parse the the discussion’s chronology, so I don’t know exactly who initiated the deletion process or why, but one user cited [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event](this policy regarding notability) which sounds like grounds enough to initiate a discussion.
I have not made any claims regarding if he deserves a Wikipedia page or not, I am simply defending their right to moderate their content.
If the result of that moderation was that the page was not created, and you wanted to be mad about that, by all means feel free. But if you’re going to be mad because an OP told you to be with incredibly verifiable information, and you chose not to make that verification. Then I think you’re stupid and I don’t like you.
Wikipedia is very user-driven in how they moderate. As a result their policies are intentionally broad. The fact that those policies are selectively being used in this particular event (and not in others) is deserving of criticism.
If the dude was up for possible extradition for grievous warcrimes he seems to have committed a over a half-century ago and made no real effort to hide in the interim (see his blogging about it for some reason), it seems like he gets well above the threshold of notability for him to get an article if Nostalgia Critic gets multiple.
