“`html
Xavier Trudeau, the eldest son of former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has recently embarked on a career as an R&B artist, performing under the stage name Xav. Yet, despite this new venture, questions arise as to whether such details qualify him as a notable figure worthy of a Wikipedia entry. The same query extends to Tim McCord, the guitarist for Evanescence, and Rainer Holtorff, the “Yachtmaster of the Year” in 2012. All three individuals have faced the potential deletion of their biographies from the platform this year, with claims that they do not possess sufficient notability to warrant such entries.
Every day, numerous biographies are removed from Wikipedia, encompassing a range of subjects from child actors who have transitioned into real estate agents in Los Angeles to retired ambassadors and footballers who have played only a handful of minutes in professional matches.
The Issue of Space on Wikipedia
Despite Wikipedia hosting over seven million articles in English, space is not the issue at hand. The platform operates with a limited number of volunteers who oversee its content. As of now, Wikipedia editors continue to uncover hoaxes that have persisted unnoticed for decades. The time spent verifying the release dates of Xav’s three singles may be deemed better utilised questioning whether Civil War officer Nathaniel Lyon truly consumed mustard during battle, a claim that had remained in his Wikipedia biography for 17 years. This assertion was removed not due to its veracity being disproven, but rather because there was a lack of reliable sources to substantiate it.
Britta Gustafson, a Wikipedia editor since 2001, explained, “We’re not really looking for what’s true; we’re looking for what’s verifiable.” Wikipedia editors do not independently determine the notability of a person; instead, they often find themselves grappling with a lack of credible evidence supporting such claims. A recent casualty in this regard is Kimberly Small, the executive director of a Nevada-based nonprofit supporting survivors of sexual assault. The debate surrounding her biography unfolded in a public Wikipedia forum, the very space where critical decisions about what is deemed worthy of inclusion are made.
Defining Notability in Nonprofits
One editor posed an intriguing question: “How should we judge nonprofit executives? By the nature of their work, attention is rightly focused on the organisation and its mission rather than on them.” Another editor countered, “I don’t see anything wrong with nonprofit leaders being less often notable in their own right. Wikipedia is not an award.”
While it may not be intended as a reward, the presence of a Wikipedia article certainly conveys a certain significance. Gustafson acknowledged, “Having an article says something; it implies something.” During a six-week period from April to May, I reached out to hundreds of individuals whose Wikipedia pages were in jeopardy, and nearly all had learned about their situation through me. A Spanish filmmaker remarked, “If you want to write something to save the page, I would be grateful.” It is clear that while a Wikipedia biography may not be an accolade, those who have had one and subsequently lost it are acutely aware of its value.
Martina Dimoska: A Rising Scientist
Martina Dimoska, a scientist from North Macedonia, works at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. As an “analog astronaut” involved in missions simulating space environments, Dimoska also serves as a science communicator. Frequently active on LinkedIn, she boasts recognition from Forbes, Bloomberg, the United Nations, and global innovation networks. A Facebook video capturing her reaction to the announcement of the Artemis III crew illustrates her proactive approach to being part of history. On TikTok, she has even collaborated with a cosmetics brand whose products are tested for efficacy in space.
On April 29, Dimoska excitedly posted on Facebook, “Wait… Am I on Wikipedia now!?” She reflected on her journey, stating, “A few years ago, building a career in the space sector from the Balkans seemed impossible. And now… somehow, that trajectory is part of the public record. I’m incredibly grateful for [the biography] being there… I hope that through my experience, I can help a new generation see space as something accessible, not distant.” However, the very next day, her Wikipedia page was proposed for deletion.
The Debate on Self-Editing
Anne Clin, an editor on Wikipedia since 2005 under the username Risker, cautioned against celebrating the creation of a Wikipedia article. “Especially if you are what we call ‘marginally notable’,” she expressed. There is also a strong taboo against editing one’s own information. Even if existing data is erroneous, self-edits must be avoided to prevent conflicts of interest. This guideline has been disregarded by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, who has been caught editing his biography multiple times—an act that has since been documented within his Wikipedia entry. In 2022, novelist Emily St. John Mandel faced challenges updating her biography following her divorce and ultimately granted an interview solely to create a secondary source for that information.
Some prominent Wikipedia editors have biographies about themselves. Clin is occasionally asked if she would like one but actively sabotages that possibility. “You can’t write a proper biographical article about me because I don’t provide enough personal information to do so,” she stated firmly.
The Criteria for Deletion
Among those who read Dimoska’s Facebook post about her new Wikipedia page was Kiril Simeonovski, an economist from Skopje, Macedonia, and a Wikipedia editor since 2008. Simeonovski found Dimoska’s post self-congratulatory and deemed the biography itself as overly promotional. He questioned the inherent notability of an “analog astronaut,” a role he later likened to that of a laboratory mouse.
An editor can flag an article for deletion, and unless satisfactory modifications are made within a specified timeframe, the page will vanish. Rather than marking it for deletion, Simeonovski referred the article to his fellow editors for debate.
In his arguments for deletion, Simeonovski described Dimoska’s biography as “merely [a] chronology of inflated personal achievements,” meticulously dismantling each claim and asserting that they failed to credibly establish her as a notable individual. Even more damning was the timing of Dimoska’s Facebook announcement, “shortly after the article was approved.” For him, this served as undeniable proof. “How could she have promoted the page so quickly if she wasn’t connected to it in some way?”
The Value of Wikipedia
When an editor proposes an article for deletion, they add a warning to the flagged page: “If you created this page, please don’t take offence.” This courtesy does not extend to the article’s subject. When I reached out to these individuals—hundreds of them—to inquire about their feelings regarding being deemed “non-notable,” I was not surprised to find that the response rate to this question was around 1%, perhaps even lower.
Matthew Songer, an orthopaedic surgeon from Michigan with three decades of experience, witnessed his biography marked for deletion (“Unlikely to be notable”) in April. Songer was among the 1% who responded. He clarified that his desire for the page was not rooted in vanity; he often serves as an expert witness in trials, and appearing on Wikipedia provides added credibility. “The page is a good reference for lawyers,” he explained.
Maneli Mirkhan, a Franco-Iranian advisor on international affairs, agreed that having a Wikipedia biography instils confidence in her services. However, her biography was flagged by Wikipedia editors for resembling a CV. Similarly, Andrew Wyant, an executive in the Phoenix area working in fitness and nutrition, saw his biography deemed insufficiently notable due to a lack of coverage from secondary sources. He lamented that he was to blame for not having “fed” his public image through self-promotion. “What I know for sure is that I am largely responsible for the growth of the personal training and fitness profession, having created this category over the last decade,” he told me. “I believe my achievements and impact are notable, but I don’t feel the need to promote them in the media to have a Wikipedia page.”
The Struggle for Recognition
Both Songer’s and Wyant’s biographies were removed. Mirkhan’s, however, reappeared a few days later, rewritten and with new sources. When I asked Mirkhan if she had participated in the recreation of the page, she replied no, but was not surprised. Mirkhan had been sought after by French media for commentary on events in Iran, and increased coverage typically signifies greater notability. Yet, there remains the chicken-and-egg dilemma: Mirkhan believes that what gave the media confidence to choose her as a commentator was not just her career and experience, but also her presence on Wikipedia.
Accusations of Self-Promotion
Simeonovski did not begin with the suspicion that Dimoska had written her own Wikipedia biography. He argued in the public discussion on Wikipedia that the sources for her biography were weak, partially relying on posts from her LinkedIn profile, which promoted her social media accounts, including a photo where she compared herself to NASA engineer Margaret Hamilton. This post had garnered significant attention, leading to both