# wikipedia campaign to remove Erik and Faz



## David Zemdegs (Feb 2, 2011)

The wikipedia pages for Faz and Erik are marked for deletion. The reason cited is that they are not "notable". As there are many pages for individuals that hold or have held world records, I see this as an attack on the notability of speedcubing itself. For example, David Storl has a small page as he holds one world record in junior shot put. Good on him. But if he is notable why not Erik and Faz who hold multiple world records?
If you feel passionate enough to fight against the deletions, you must edit to add a comment on the deletion discussion pages.

Erik: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erik_Akkersdijk
Faz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Feliks_Zemdegs

You may like to find someone on wikipedia who you think is cannot possibly be more notable than Erik and Faz and add a post as to why they are notable.

Thanks


----------



## PatrickJameson (Feb 2, 2011)

I don't see a problem with it. As billnye suggested in the chat room, I think a "Speed Cubing World Records" page would be more appropriate. Those pages don't go into much depth(nor can they, really) except for pasting in their WCA solves.


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 2, 2011)

"former WR holders should not have there own page". Can somebody remove "the hall of fame" and similar places? What about removing Michael Jordans page?
and both Erik and Faz have dominated the speedsolving world, both having 7 out of 8 (2/3/4/5 single/average) of the most mainstream WR's AND several others
Erik also helped develop and promote several methods (AvG edge-pairing, TuRBO blind) and contributed many common algorithms. and he has been in the media OFTEN.
Faz has broken more WR's than anyone else in recordtime (pun intended) and is dominating like nobody has ever done before

I am not active on WikiPedia, don't have an account, but I hope somebody will fight this


----------



## danthecuber (Feb 2, 2011)

How is Faz's page different form Jessica Fridrich's, but one is on the deletion block and one isn't?


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Feb 2, 2011)

danthecuber said:


> How is Faz's page different form Jessica Fridrich's, but one is on the deletion block and one isn't?


Are you serious? Maybe because Faz didn't create a method to solve the cube?
Although I believe that Faz should be on there, comparing the 2 is ridiculous. 

"Jessica Fridrich is the inventor of the most commonly-used method for speed-solving."
The creator of a method should have a Wiki page, way more than someone who gets WRs.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 2, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> The creator of a method should have a Wiki page, way more than someone who gets WRs.


 
Disagree.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Feb 2, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> ~


Non-cubers don't care about who invented some method.
They just care "woah, he solves quickly!"

What method one uses makes little difference.
(nonetheless, I see no reason for either page to be deleted)


----------



## masterofthebass (Feb 2, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> Non-cubers don't care about who invented some method.
> They just care "woah, he solves quickly!"
> 
> What method one uses makes little difference.
> (nonetheless, I see no reason for either page to be deleted)



so that means this guy is equivalent to Fridrich.

and this guy is fazers double.

Seems that one is more important than the other.


----------



## AustinReed (Feb 2, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> so that means this guy is equivalent to Fridrich.
> 
> and this guy is fazers double.
> 
> Seems that one is more important than the other.



That seems really logical.


----------



## Owen (Feb 2, 2011)

endofdaworld said:


> Why not create a "Rubiks Wiki" and make pages solely about cubers there?


 
It's called the speedsolving wiki, but only cubers read it.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Feb 2, 2011)

endofdaworld said:


> Why not create a "Rubiks Wiki" and make pages solely about cubers there?


 
That's a good idea.


----------



## danthecuber (Feb 2, 2011)

endofdaworld said:


> Why not create a "Rubiks Wiki" and make pages solely about cubers there?


 
Um, Excuse me?
Except, its much more than just cubers.


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 2, 2011)

> In 2003, Bryant was accused of sexual assault after having sex with a hotel employee in Edwards, Colorado. In September 2004, prosecutors dropped the case after his accuser refused to testify,[2] and Bryant had to rebuild his image while becoming the cornerstone of the Lakers


I think I know how Erik and Faz could keep there pages 



endofdaworld said:


> Why not create a "Rubiks Wiki" and make pages solely about cubers there?


 http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki


----------



## danthecuber (Feb 2, 2011)

AvGalen said:


> I think I know how Erik and Faz could keep there pages


@fazdad wouldn't be too happy


----------



## hic0057 (Feb 2, 2011)

endofdaworld said:


> Why not create a "Rubiks Wiki" and make pages solely about cubers there?


 
Don't we already have the speedsolving wiki.
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Also I checeked the speedsolving wiki for Felik and he isn't on it. We should add information about WR cubers on the speedsolving Wiki


----------



## That70sShowDude (Feb 2, 2011)

lol @ the speedsolving wiki being linked 4 times on this page


----------



## Edward (Feb 2, 2011)

I like how someone mentioned making a wiki of just cubers, and he got like 5 replies with the same link.
Only speedsolvers know about the speedsolving wiki (mostly) 

But since it's been made already, how do we get the information in a better place?


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 2, 2011)

hic0057 said:


> Also I checeked the speedsolving wiki for Felik and he isn't on it. We should add information about WR cubers on the speedsolving Wiki


 


PatrickJameson said:


> That's a good idea.


 
click some of those links


----------



## danthecuber (Feb 2, 2011)

That70sShowDude said:


> lol @ the speedsolving wiki being linked 4 times on this page


 
the @endofdaworld is coming


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Feb 2, 2011)

Not only does speedsolving have a wiki, but there is speedcubing in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedcubing


----------



## danthecuber (Feb 2, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> Not only does speedsolving have a wiki, but there is speedcubing in Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedcubing


 
Also these people are there too.


----------



## uberCuber (Feb 2, 2011)

danthecuber said:


> Duplicate post


 
and then you double posted 

.............

On topic, I am fine with individual pages about Erik and Faz being removed, for reasons that I will not bother restating because they were stated by others earlier in the thread.


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 2, 2011)

If they are already there, why delete them?


----------



## danthecuber (Feb 2, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> If they are already there, why delete them?





Faz's page on Wikipedia said:


> This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
> Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
> Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.


Deletion Policy
A very objective answer.


----------



## uberCuber (Feb 3, 2011)

@danthecuber, your last post says that it was edited, so you obviously know of the existence of the edit button. Can you please use it instead of double posting? Apparently you didn't catch that from my last post.


anyway, @ben, in Wikipedia's deletion policy (that danthecuber linked to above) is a link to the Wikipedia guideline article on Notability. Give that a read through


----------



## hic2482w (Feb 3, 2011)

So frank morris can have a page, but the person who has DESTROYED all 3x3 WRs can't?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Morris_(cube_solver)


----------



## danthecuber (Feb 3, 2011)

hic2482w said:


> So frank morris can have a page, but the person who has DESTROYED all 3x3 WRs can't?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Morris_(cube_solver)


again, Frank Morris is among  these people who have pages
also Faz not just has the 3x3x3WR, but also 2x2x2, 4x4x4, and 5x5x5WRs, owning all single and Average WRs except 2x2x2 single (held by Erik)


----------



## PatrickJameson (Feb 3, 2011)

danthecuber said:


> AvGalen is a Super Moderator, so he must know of the edit button too, yet he didn't use it on his duplicate post.


 
Duplicate posts happen sometimes because of lag of either parties or for whatever other reason. Sometimes you don't notice. Now let's stop getting completely off topic.

Edit: Oh the irony of you posting twice in a row within a minute of each other. Also I'll delete any off topic posts after this.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 3, 2011)

Nah, his recog is pretty good.


----------



## Specs112 (Feb 3, 2011)

Well, we haven't got any sources other than WCA really. And that's a big no on BLPs. Now I would assume that the non-cubing public has at least put something in the news.
*searches*
Here's two articles, for example.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...biks-cube-genius/story-e6frf7kx-1225720004320
http://www.shishirk.com/2010/11/feliks-zemdegs-aussie-teen-breaks-rubiks-cube-world-record/
A bit outdated, but yeah, just put those (or other stuff that we can find) into the article, cite them properly, and the sources from outside our community should establish notability.


----------



## danthecuber (Feb 3, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Nah, his recog is pretty good.


 
Clarify Please.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Feb 3, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> If they are already there, why delete them?


 
Not only is there a rule for it, but seriously?
Your logic: If it's there, there is absolutely no reason to delete something.


----------



## Specs112 (Feb 3, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> Not only is there a rule for it, but seriously?
> Your logic: If it's there, there is absolutely no reason to delete something.


 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 3, 2011)

danthecuber said:


> Clarify Please.


 
the post I was replying to was deleted.

YOU WILL NEVER KNOW


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Feb 3, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism


 
Wow, that was really interesting. Never knew that existed.


----------



## Specs112 (Feb 3, 2011)

I've added a comment on Faz's AFD (regular Wikipedian here). This isn't really the sort of thing that gets deleted, since we do have sources.
Will be watching the page.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Feb 3, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> I've added a comment on Faz's AFD (regular Wikipedian here). This isn't really the sort of thing that gets deleted, since we do have sources.
> Will be watching the page.


Since you're a regular Wikipedian, can you answer something? If I have personal knowledge about someone, and I want to add it, but I don't have linkable sources, just personal experiences with them, can I add that, or will it get deleted? 

Because, I tried to add information to someone who has a Wiki, from when we were in highschool, and it all got deleted.


----------



## Kian (Feb 3, 2011)

It's based on the number of views of the page. It's not personal. Wiki does an unbelievable job.


----------



## Specs112 (Feb 3, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> Since you're a regular Wikipedian, can you answer something? If I have personal knowledge about someone, and I want to add it, but I don't have linkable sources, just personal experiences with them, can I add that, or will it get deleted?
> 
> Because, I tried to add information to someone who has a Wiki, from when we were in highschool, and it all got deleted.


 
That would be original research, and possibly a conflict of interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR. I'm not surprised it was deleted.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources.


----------



## CubeLTD (Feb 3, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> Are you serious? Maybe because Faz didn't create a method to solve the cube?
> Although I believe that Faz should be on there, comparing the 2 is ridiculous.
> 
> "Jessica Fridrich is the inventor of the most commonly-used method for speed-solving."
> The creator of a method should have a Wiki page, way more than someone who gets WRs.



Agreed.

Fridich= Inventor of Fridich Method
Faz= WR Holder USING the method created by the above person.

If I have to be objective, I kinda agree with Wikipedia. Having multiple pages for WR Holders seem pointless. The best Idea would to add a sub heading in the Speedcubing page of Wikipedia, and List the WR Holder, the Record they hold, and the short bio. 

No offense to Faz or Erik of course.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 3, 2011)

In my experience, and from reading their help pages, Wikipedia's "notability" guideline is not based on real-world popularity or on logic, but rather on:
- being mentioned in a print newspaper, and
- not being disliked by a higher-up in the Wikipedia bureaucracy.

It's quite possible for a page to get deleted even if you have references in printed papers, because higher Wikipedia editors can often ignore their own rules when they want to get something done (this has happened before to a page I was trying to save). It is pretty clear that Wikipedia would be a lot better if they allowed a wider range of topics, because then a lot fewer people would search for something there and not find it; I'll just say that there are other wikis out there for a very good reason. If you want an article about Faz and Erik, you should give up on TOW and just spiff up the speedsolving wiki (so it looks professional and people outside this cubing community start visiting it).


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 3, 2011)

qqwref said:


> If you want an article about Faz and Erik, you should give up on TOW and just spiff up the speedsolving wiki (so it looks professional and people outside this cubing community start visiting it).


 
:tu

I like this suggestion. It feels very much like Guinness world records for cubing. After getting tired with all the ridiculous rules they were imposing on us, we decided to have our own WCA sanctioned records, which are quoted in the press by the way. I hope Faz and Erik don't have their articles deleted on Wikipedia, but even if it happens the Speedsolving wiki really is the go to place for information about puzzles anyway, at least for the more-than-casual puzzle enthusiast.


----------



## VP7 (Feb 3, 2011)

Sounds like censorship to me.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Feb 3, 2011)

I completely agree with qqwref here. I just gave the Wikipedia page about Notability a good read over, and it is clear about what is notable or not (and part of this "being clear" involves that it *does not* have to be world fame).

Since Erik and Feliks both have a decent bit of publicity in the press, we should dig those articles up and include them on the pages. I also think it wouldn't hurt to find some sort of link to a profile about Feliks. It is mentioned when he picked up his first speedcube and such, since there are no relevant links to that, it seems like that bit of his page could be deleted, and the only "relevant information" (that can be verified) would be his world records. That makes for a pretty bland page. If we could have some sort of profile online, a video (that Feliks made), or even a link to Cubecast Podcast Episode 02 would suffice (plus a link to CubeCast would get it some popularity and possibly a reason to have its own wikipedia article).

I think Erik's page needs more information on it, since the bulk of the page is his various (National and World) records. I realize that the reason it's scrolling is because the data is displayed on new lines, but it still makes the two (small) paragraphs look less important.

In short: I think Feliks and Erik both need more information on their page, about them (not just their records), and the information needs to be verifiable. The argument to keep the pages would at least be stronger at that point.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Feb 3, 2011)

VP7 said:


> Sounds like censorship to me.


 
Haha, not at all. It's just people who edit wikipedia figuring out what is deserving of it's own article and what is not. Those who edit wikipedia have nothing against the speedcubing community.


----------



## David Zemdegs (Feb 3, 2011)

What I like is the list on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Feliks_Zemdegs

How are these people notable (competitive eating?????) and Erik and Faz not?


----------



## Kian (Feb 3, 2011)

fazdad said:


> What I like is the list on this page:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Feliks_Zemdegs
> 
> How are these people notable (competitive eating?????) and Erik and Faz not?



They're more notable because, as much as you don't care about, many more people know who they are than know Feliks or Erik or any other cuber. Cuber's names are known almost exclusively within the cubing community, that's it. Again, this is not personal, they are just maintaining a standard of what is and isn't notable enough. They choose to draw a line so that their website isn't cluttered with 92 billion entries, and that line needs to be drawn somewhere.


----------



## David Zemdegs (Feb 3, 2011)

Kian said:


> many more people know who they are than know Feliks or Erik



This is where I would like to see some evidence.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Feb 3, 2011)

Speedcubing isn't widely known at all, Many people don't even know competitions exist.

I tell my friends about upcoming competitions, but the first time (this goes for *every* person I've told) I told them I was going to a competition for cubing, they were shocked that such competitions exist, adults and children alike.


----------



## CubeLTD (Feb 3, 2011)

I would think people would agree that more people bowl then speedcubing, which should logically means Bowling Champions are more well known then Speed cubing champions.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Feb 3, 2011)

And the typical "citation needed" card gets played again.

I personally have not heard of any of those names except "Walter Ray Williams Jr" (but he's been televised quite a bit). I'm curious why Robert Smith isn't on that list, as (if my memory is correct) he and Walter had a small rivalry (due to completely different bowling styles yet similar scores). The only reason I know that name is because I got involved in bowling for about a 1-2 year span about a year ago (is when it ended, anyhow). I could easily argue though that the competitive eaters names might be known to those who watch TV more than myself (since a decent amount of the eating contests are televised here). I could also argue that people who watch a good bit of ESPN (and its variations such as ESPN2) could possiblyy know a handful of the bowlers, arm wrestlers, and possibly darts players.

I forgot about this bit in my other post: Sarah Strong should be on Wikipedia as well. She made it to "The Bob & Tom Show" (radio show) due to her "Orangina" incident at US Nationals 2010. There is a website with random stuff that the show reads from, and apparently her comment made its way to that site. I was unable to find the post containing the orangina incident, but my girlfriend's Stepfather told me about "Some girl who does the Rubik's cube said orangaina like -----." I showed him the orangina commercial (with the cat) and that's when he piped up about it. I couldn't believe he of all people (he hates how much I do my cube) heard about that. Sarah Strong: You're famous!




RyanReese09 said:


> Speedcubing isn't widely known at all, Many people don't even know competitions exist.
> 
> I tell my friends about upcoming competitions, but the first time (this goes for *every* person I've told) I told them I was going to a competition for cubing, they were shocked that such competitions exist, adults and children alike.



I usually get the same results, although some local people remember seeing Mike Hughey on the news and vaguely remember him mentioning competitions.


----------



## goatseforever (Feb 3, 2011)

There is a way to actually see how popular something is, you know.

I just picked the top three out of that bowling list. You'll notice that Feliks basically face****s all of them in search volume.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Feb 3, 2011)

-Competitive Eating: Everyone has heard of it, and finds it's hilarious and disgusting to watch, so people are interested. Has been televised before, and shows have studied it on the Discovery Channel.
-Arm Wrestling: Every single person knows what that is. And most know there are competitions to see who is the strongest at it. This has also been televised by ESPN.
-Canoeing: Also known by anyone. It's even in the Olympics.
-Bowling: Another pass time activity that is popular throughout the world, and people know about. Also, the bowling championships are televised on ESPN.
-Darts: Another hobby that is widely known, and the championship is also televised on ESPN.


If you notice, all those sports, although not that big of a deal, are known throughout the country and world. And the one thing that puts them as notable, is that they have been televised by a major sporting channel. Just by being on ESPN means that people not only want to watch it, but also know about it having competitions.

As it's been said, most people don't know that there are speedcubers who are very fast, much less that there are competitions held for this. 

When SpeedCubing Championships begin to be publicized, then you might have a stronger argument. But as of right now, it falls under the category of people not caring as much as other equal-level sports.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Feb 3, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> When SpeedCubing Championships begin to be televised on ESPN, then you might have a stronger argument. But as of right now, it falls under the category of people not caring as much as other equal-level sports.


 
I think you should rephrase that to "When SpeedCubing Championships begin to be publicized...etc." ESPN is by far not the only channel that televises such events. Most local news channels show a lot of different sports. USA Network shows Tennis and Golf matches. Not only that, but television isn't the only way sports events get broadcast (many local high schools around her at minimum receive AM radio covereage. Don't forget about the sports events that get FM radio coverage). Also don't forget that championships alone don't have to be televised, regular competitions would suffice (though championships would make more sense). Don't forget that NZ Championship not even a year ago had a commercial about it.

I'm not sure of this, but didn't the 1980's (I want to say 1983 but I really can't remember) World Championship get televised?


----------



## Specs112 (Feb 3, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> And the one thing that puts them as notable, is that they have been televised by a major sporting channel.



Really? I've never seen any of those on TV except eating.
Why was I not informed of this? I might actually watch them.
Ironically.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Feb 3, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> I think you should rephrase that to "When SpeedCubing Championships begin to be publicized...etc." ESPN is by far not the only channel that televises such events.


 That's true. I'll change it.
But, I said ESPN, because I believe they are the biggest Sports Channel in the US.








Specs112 said:


> Really? I've never seen any of those on TV except eating.
> Why was I not informed of this? I might actually watch them.
> Ironically.


 Hahaha, yeah. I've watched the Bowling one and the Darts one.
Bowling becomes quite boring, when both players are getting Strikes at every throw, for 6 straight sets. But I wish I could do it.


----------



## David Zemdegs (Feb 3, 2011)

We are talking about people who are notable. I dont get the argument about something has to be on tv to be notable - there is no evidence about how many watch or even remember who the competitors are. And what about those people who may be on Wiki that were never on television? In any case, Faz has been on tv heaps of times and Im sure Erik has too. I like the google trends thing - didnt know about that. I would suggest that if you are after hard evidence of notability - to know someones name and type it into google search is a more reliable source IMHO.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Feb 3, 2011)

I'm not sure if Google has taken some strides to prevent this, but you can't necessarily count one phrased being searched as that phrase in general being more popular. If the google trend merely counts the number of times each phrase is googled, that means one person alone can submit that phrase countless times. I know that their search engine has things in place to prevent page rankings being influenced by this, but exactly what I'm unsure. I wouldn't be certain at all that Google trends shows notability.

If you search for Erik and Feliks on Google, you'll see some blog posts and news websites who mentions their names. I figure that's worth noting, in case anybody wants to edit the respecting Wikipedia articles so that they can be closer to being "notable."

I would also like to point out that Feliks is linked in the Rubik's Cube Wikipedia article, as well as the Speedcubing article. Erik was also linked in at least the Rubik's Cube article, before Feliks got the WR. I'm unsure if he was linked in the Speedcubing page, but I'm guessing so (since it has a list of world records). I feel it is "notable" when a person (not so savvy about this community) reads the WR time and sees the corresponding name. I'm curious to see how many times the WR holder's name (if linked) was clicked on after reading that bit in the Wikipedia article. If the readers are any bit as curious as me, I could see that number being a fairly high percentage of page hits (since the link has been edited in, of course).


----------



## Zubon (Feb 3, 2011)

I think that what Feliks has against him is that his records are very recent. It may seem to some that he is not so notable in the long term. 

However, if deletion is decided purely by the number of page views, maybe it is just too bad and Feliks and Erik. I guess we have to face the reality that the modern speedcubing revival is still young and not so well known but I'm sure that this will change in the future. I don't agree with the deletions so I hope that something can be done.

You would be surprised at just how well known some competitive eaters are here in Japan. Especially Kobayashi. Probably more than half of all Japanese people would know who he is. Bowling is also a very popular sport all around the world.


----------



## Radu (Feb 3, 2011)

I really don't get, how some people here are fine with the deletion of those two pages. 

No, they're not George Bush, but they are more famous than many people in wikipedia and we should support them! They deserve a place there. Yes, we have a speedsolving wiki for (notabale/celebrity) speedcubers, but the most famous of these should have a place also in wikipedia. We're not talking about an average or good cuber. We're talking about the best 2!


----------



## David Zemdegs (Feb 3, 2011)

The notability guidelines of wikipedia state "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or *popularity*—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below". It is difficult to argue a objective measure of notability - most of what is in this thread is subjective.
The proposed deletion (AFAIK) is not based on anything to do with "page hits". It is purely someones point of view. Is there a list of wiki pages "hits" from lowest to highest?


----------



## qqwref (Feb 3, 2011)

Kian said:


> They choose to draw a line so that their website isn't cluttered with 92 billion entries, and that line needs to be drawn somewhere.


Except that their website IS cluttered. It's not even difficult to find examples of unimportant historical figures, irrelevant lists, or locations that only an atlas publisher would have heard of.

And besides, this is an era of 2-terabyte hard drives that cost $80 each. Nobody is gonna be hurt by a few extra 10KB articles.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Feb 3, 2011)

Not to be rude, but I'm guessing you didn't try researching for your answer first. I'm guilty of that too, though.

http://stats.grok.se/en/top

http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/Feliks Zemdegs

http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/Erik Akkersdijk

You'll notice that I set the date for 201012 in both Feliks and Erik's pages. That's because for whatever reason, the "Top" page is showing 201012 instead of 201101. I just wanted to keep the results consistent. But take notice how the page has 6k views for Jan 2011:

http://stats.grok.se/en/201101/Feliks Zemdegs





qqwref said:


> And besides, this is an era of 2-terabyte hard drives that cost $80 each. Nobody is gonna be hurt by a few extra 10KB articles.



:tu


----------



## Enter (Feb 3, 2011)

fazdad said:


> What I like is the list on this page:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Feliks_Zemdegs
> 
> How are these people notable (competitive eating?????) and Erik and Faz not?


 
All the sports mentioned are broadcasted on tv(live) cubing is not!


----------



## goatseforever (Feb 3, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> Not to be rude, but I'm guessing you didn't try researching for your answer first. I'm guilty of that too, though.
> 
> http://stats.grok.se/en/top
> 
> ...


 
Since you apparently think Google trends isn't a valid indication of popularity, (because clearly some guy out there must be searching Faz's name 24/7 and single handedly shifting the search volume statistics,) let's use your link. Faz's Wikipedia article search volume still blows away everyone on that competitive eating/bowling/darts/canoeing list. I'm too lazy to make hyperlinks I'm sure you're all competent enough to check yourself.


----------



## David Zemdegs (Feb 3, 2011)

And if the worlds encyclopedia decides that notability is based purely on popularity then we are indeed a doomed species.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Feb 3, 2011)

goatseforever said:


> Since you apparently think Google trends isn't a valid indication of popularity



Whoa buddy, I never once said I thought that. I just stated that we don't know how many unique searches there are for the given phrase(s). If I type in "Feliks Zemdegs" to get to his wikipedia article easily, but say I do that 10 times in one month, that should only count for 1 hit on Google trends (not 10). I am only one person that knows the name, not 10. Just because I find it easier to let google supply me the wikipedia link (open new tab, type his name, hit enter, then enter again; opposed to typing in the link to wikipedia.org then typing his name -- it's just less typing), doesn't mean that he is anymore popular (and if you've paid any attention to this thread or the Wikipedia Notability page, you'd understand that being popular isn't the only (or even necessarily one piece of) criteria to make a given article notable).



fazdad said:


> And if the worlds encyclopedia decides that notability is based purely on popularity then we are indeed a doomed species.


 
:tu


----------



## goatseforever (Feb 3, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> Whoa buddy, I never once said I thought that. I just stated that we don't know how many unique searches there are for the given phrase(s). If I type in "Feliks Zemdegs" to get to his wikipedia article easily, but say I do that 10 times in one month, that should only count for 1 hit on Google trends (not 10). I am only one person that knows the name, not 10. Just because I find it easier to let google supply me the wikipedia link (open new tab, type his name, hit enter, then enter again; opposed to typing in the link to wikipedia.org then typing his name -- it's just less typing), doesn't mean that he is anymore popular (and if you've paid any attention to this thread or the Wikipedia Notability page, you'd understand that being popular isn't the only (or even necessarily one piece of) criteria to make a given article notable).


 
EDIT: This thread is about to get massively derailed so I'm going to put a stop to this. My point was, you said in regards to Google Trends: 

"you can't necessarily count one phrased being searched as that phrase in general being more popular. If the google trend merely counts the number of times each phrase is googled, that means one person alone can submit that phrase countless times." 

Then you turn around and post a site that tracks how many times a phrase or word is searched on Wikipedia. I found that puzzling. And I'm not going to get into the popularity vs. notability debate because guess what not a single **** is given by me. That is all.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Feb 3, 2011)

If you could what I said there, why couldn't you notice that I submitted something that fazdad wanted? I in no part used it as an argument, I merely linked it for him since he asked for it.

I find it quite interesting that you wanted to put a stop to it, yet continued to post about it.


----------



## Erik (Feb 3, 2011)

Wiki people are bastards. When I first had the WR (9.77) someone made a page, but it was removed after a few days because of.... well probably 'not interesting enough'. I did some more WR's and finally the 7.08, someone made a page again. Since then it has only been expanding with info about 2 TV shows and my youtube channel. I have the feeling people just delete stuff from it too randomly. Anyway, when the English one is removed I still have my 8 other pages ROFL 
Back to serious: I can (sadly) understand why mine would be removed since I don't really play a role as a top cuber anymore. Faz' would be weird though since he just dominates half of all events. I'd say lets edit both pages to contain more info and more media appearance details (out of principle I never edit my own though...) and hope for the best. The more wiki pages about speedcubing the better.


----------



## ariasamie (Feb 3, 2011)

I added erik's appearance on ZDF but and linked the video:
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/haup.../beitrag/video/1063048/Der-Speedcubing-Rekord
maybe someone can add more detail to it on the wiki and explain what happened at that show.

EDIT: I just added Faz's appearance on IQ channel.


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (Feb 3, 2011)

goatseforever said:


> EDIT: This thread is about to get massively derailed so I'm going to put a stop to this. My point was, you said in regards to Google Trends:
> 
> "you can't necessarily count one phrased being searched as that phrase in general being more popular. If the google trend merely counts the number of times each phrase is googled, that means one person alone can submit that phrase countless times."
> 
> Then you turn around and post a site that tracks how many times a phrase or word is searched on Wikipedia. I found that puzzling. And I'm not going to get into the popularity vs. notability debate because guess what not a single **** is given by me. That is all.



Anyway I have helped revive the game by the legendary frustration of the cube and see the competition reborn. Without recognition or when he was almost dead, big difference. The 3x3 is more popular but the corner is the base of the cube. Speed is not the only way to display excellence. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voRzWNQueNE


----------



## Raffael (Feb 3, 2011)

Gaétan Guimond said:


> Anyway I have helped revive the game by the legendary frustration of the cube and see the competition reborn. Without recognition or when he was almost dead, big difference. The 3x3 is more popular but the corner is the base of the cube. Speed is not the only way to display excellence.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voRzWNQueNE


 
Somebody set up us the cube.
Main inhibitor turn on.
All your cube are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
For great justice.


----------



## Akuma (Feb 3, 2011)

Why not add the article to the speedsolving Wiki? I seriously don't see a problem with this at all


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 3, 2011)

Since Wikipedia is edited by people, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those editors looking at the cubing articles are from the slice of the population who are still of the opinion that cubing is "that 80's fad that died." That would explain a lot of the animosity toward the articles.

Also, my article was slated for deletion a few years ago for not being notable enough. Some people added in some media appearance and online site appearance like College Humor and Digg for some of my old videos and the issue was dropped by Wikipedia. Check out the discussion on my page to see what was said. I will be honest that I added in some of the info :-s but at least we know that increasing the descriptions of media appearances does seem to take your article off that chopping block. I say everyone try to add relevant media appearances and online/print article links to both Faz and Erik's article. It could be what saves them from the deletion.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Feb 3, 2011)

Chris, I'm not sure if you've seen, but the pages for the articles being up for deletion include a good amount of links pertaining to media appearances and what not. I do think though (as stated in one of my earlier posts) that these types of links need to be added to their main pages, not just their articles for deletion pages.


----------



## flan (Feb 3, 2011)

I created a wikipedia page for my mum ages ago. Its 3 lines long and still there.


----------



## Godmil (Feb 3, 2011)

Someone should link that advert Erik was in into his wiki page


----------



## qqwref (Feb 3, 2011)

fazdad said:


> And if the worlds encyclopedia decides that notability is based purely on popularity then we are indeed a doomed species.


Notability shouldn't be based *purely* on popularity, but it would be very hard to argue, using an intuitive definition of "notable", that a very popular thing is NOT notable.



cmhardw said:


> Since Wikipedia is edited by people, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those editors looking at the cubing articles are from the slice of the population who are still of the opinion that cubing is "that 80's fad that died." That would explain a lot of the animosity toward the articles.


Absolutely. I'm sure there are lots of people out there who think cubing is still some dead fad that nobody tries, and that the "world champion" is probably just some kid who got lucky or something. But hey, I have similar disdain for certain the real sports, and I wouldn't propose to delete articles just because of that. Many Wikipedians are bureaucrats pure and simple, not reasonable or nice but simply adhering to rules with their own set of imagined loopholes.


----------

