[glasshug]

Please read the discussion that deleted this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

It's a hard problem. Volunteer editors are spread thinly over millions of articles, some of which (like "Bruce Faulconer") are about living people that are really important to get right.[1] The project has settled on the guideline of _notability_, meaning that articles are kept only if they have significant coverage in reliable sources.[2] Proving a negative is not really possible, but it works okay most of the time.

It's worth thinking about alternate policies you could set up.[3] You could decide deletion based on whether a figure were "known and beloved all over the world," as the author suggests, which is difficult to define. You could could keep everything,[4] which some alternate Wikis have tried. You get unmaintained pages and probably libel.

Gioia criticizes the barrier to contribution, which is also a difficult balance to reach. Some processes are just inherently complex and involve reaching consensus among hundreds of people. Others could be simplified, but every hour spent discussing and implementing improvements is an hour taken from improving the content.

The policies are under constant discussion and change,[5] and no one thinks we've reached the perfect balance between these constraints. See, for example, this month's headline case at the Arbitration Committee around deletion.[6]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_i...

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...

[BrainVirus]

>Volunteer editors are spread thinly over millions of articles

I would like to point out that this is, effectively, a very clever way of saying that Wikipedia is controlled by a tiny group of people whose goals for Wikipedia do not match the expectations of the general public.

[glasshug]

There's definitely a systemic bias on Wikipedia towards its generally more-white, more-male, younger, English-speaking editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias

I'm not sure what the policy solution is. Some suggestions are given on the linked page, but it's a continuing issue.

[leereeves]

It seems the policies for notable composers [1] fail to recognize the work of TV composers.

Judging by this case, composing the music for a TV show watched for years by millions of people doesn't count, but composing something performed in a theatre and watched by far fewer people is officially notable:

> Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as such things are judged in their particular situation, context, and time.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#C...

[entwife]

This observation is likely a good basis for an improvement to the Wikipedia policies on Notability in music.

[Robotbeat]

It seems to me that erroring on the side of not deleting is probably a better policy.

[tshaddox]

And it seems to be that the opposite is probably a better policy. This is precisely the debate discussed in the link in the previous comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_i...

[chalst]

That is erring on the side of hosting spam, urban legends and pseudoscience. The opinion was made in the AfD that no quality sources for the article: without them, no worthwhile article can be written.

[ranger207]

Normally I'd agree, but I think the opposite for living people in particular

[barnabee]

> It's worth thinking about alternate policies you could set up

A reasonable alternative would be for the notability requirement simply to be that the general public may run into the topic/person (and presumably therefore be interested to know more) OR may ask a question to which the article would contain the answer.

Anyone who’s creative work is published or included in a movie or whatever should automatically be included under such a rule.

It would also be sensible for the default in the case of dispute to be to keep the article unless the actual content itself is completely unverifiable, as long as there is some half way plausible argument for doing so.

There should be no sense of achievement for or gratitude towards anyone removing facts from an encyclopaedia.

Any editor who makes removing articles on notability grounds their raison d’etre demonstrates only arrogance and smugness.

[justincormack]

It was also restored since then, with a note it still needs improving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Faulconer

[jsmith45]

Further the guidelines on composers that are likely to apply to him are listed below. It is not at all clear that he meets the bar here.

From the info I have, the only criteria he may meet is #1 for in the first group, and it is not actually clear that "soundtrack for DBZ" is a notable composition. for a TV show soundtrack to qualify as notable, it would need to be something often written about. For example, if a show is discussed for its music almost as often as for its plot, then sure the soundtrack is probably notable. I don't think that actually applies here.

And even if so, if he is only really known for one work (which pretty much is the case), that would generally be merged with the article for that work. So he could be mentioned in the "Sound Track of DBZ" article if one existed, or the "soundtrack" section of the main DBZ article.

------

Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. 2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as such things are judged in their particular situation, context, and time. 3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. 4. Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. 5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria. 6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music.

Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible.

---

Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture.

2. Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable music genre.

3. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching for a particular music genre.

4. Is cited by reliable sources as having established a tradition or school in a particular music genre.

5. Has been listed as a significant musical influence on musicians or composers who meet the above criteria.