I've gone ahead and restored the article, but not knowing much about Rich Hickey I hope someone here can edit the article to actually contain some (sourced, i.e. with citations) content, as it's pretty bare right now (looks/looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Hickey&oldid...).
The article was created in 2008 and its deletion was discussed and happened in July 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... Someone recreated it (without discussion) in August 2013, and it was reverted to its "redirect" state in January 2014. I suspect that notability has changed now (e.g. Clojure itself is more popular, there are other things, and if nothing else his notability as a speaker is probably worth mentioning) and my guess is that if the article were to be discussed again, it might survive. But this is assuming there is actually content for the article that someone can add to it! Otherwise what's the point of an article about a person that doesn't say anything?
In my experience, adding something well-sourced to Wikipedia is usually a more lasting contribution (probably more people will read it, over time) than comments on HN -- the only downside is that it may get reverted quickly on flimsy grounds and you need some experience to make good edits that will stick.
Edit: Or just mention here what can be added to the article and what the source of each bit of information is, and I'll try to add them!
- ClojureScript (https://clojurescript.org/)
- Datomic database (https://www.datomic.com/)
- edn data format (https://github.com/edn-format/edn) - extensible data notation (subset of Clojure's syntax)
- Transit (https://github.com/cognitect/transit-format) - format for conveying values between languages
- Fressian (https://github.com/Datomic/fressian) - extensible binary data notation, used by Datomic
- REBL (http://rebl.cognitect.com/download.html) - graphical tool for browsing Clojure data
- Codeq (https://github.com/Datomic/codeq) - Clojure+Datomic application to do code-aware queries on git repos
Thanks! I've added most of that (there are no Wikipedia articles for Transit/Fressian/REBL/Codeq, so not sure how to mention those without external links which look weird inline).
Still, an editor who doesn't like the current state could simply revert it, as there are no sources for any of this. Note that the criterion is “verifiability, not truth” — Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of what has been said about a topic/person in books, newspapers, etc., so even though all of these are obviously true, it would be best to find a source that mentions these things and cite that!
[Similarly, in general, if you are the subject of a Wikipedia article and you find that it has some incorrect information about you, then rather than editing the article directly it is best to get something published or write something yourself—even a blog post—and cite that. :-)]
That's great. Thank you for going ahead with that.
I'll try to add some more relevant details with citations over the weekend or atleast put it here.
Do you think if we start a new thread, it will gain more traction? Just a thought.
> Restoring redirect - I see no evidence that he is notable for anything but Clojure
Redirecting the Wikipedia article for Elizabeth II to buckingham.co.uk. I see no evidence that she is notable for anything but being the British queen.
He's notable as a thinker and speaker about programming, quite apart from Clojure. The idea pool is the same, but that's true of any thinker.
It's a bad argument regardless. Plenty of figures in intellectual history are notable because of one big thing they created, and I'm sure most have Wikipedia pages. Alas I'm blanking on examples just now.
Aren't most notable people notable for one notable thing? Sorry, to get into Wikipedia, you'd have to win at least one gold medal at the Olympic games, be elected president of at least two countries, die in no less than 3 battles, AND you have to be the first confirmed case of at least one pandemic.
I think a rule of thumb is that something must have been written that was about you, rather than about your creation or whatever. The idea is that as Wikipedia is supposed to be a summarization of the secondary sources on a topic, there should be some material that would fit only in an article about you, and not in the article on whatever you're famous for. Some interesting examples are in the section about “people notable for only one event”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#... (which is not about people who created something and does not apply here! Just mentioning it for what it shows about interesting aspects of their policy.)
Definitely. I've come across plenty of Wikpedia profiles that are just self-maintained profiles by hardly known entrepreneurs or startup founders. Ranging from Clojure and Datomic, to his insightful talks on software design, and everything else in between, Rich Hickey's made far more significant contributions to the world in comparison.
What is notable about Hickey besides being the creator of Clojure? Not to say that this alone doesn't make him notable, but I also don't really see the gain in an entry that is just a glorified redirect.
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
I also think that it's separately notable that Rich Hickey is a prolific speaker. Granted, he almost always talks about Clojure, but I think a lot of people outside of the language still watch those talks, and it would make a lot of sense to have something to look him up by.
