Wikipedia only accepts articles with a minimum of importance

>>59421290
Maybe you can die as well and you can fellate him in heaven

>>59421290
What a cuck

>>59421290
you can make articles about the things he worked on, thosre probably can't be deleted

>>59421290
put it in the darknet

>>59421400
That's a start. Write an article about his work and then write his article and link it to the word to give it significance

>>59421290
is that late friend of yours and you the same person?

>>59421471
>to the word
Work*

>>59421477
OP is his own, only friend

>>59421491
and dead inside i guess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
Read this. Record your friend's bio somewhere else if it doesn't satisfy the notability guideline.

wikipedia is too funneled for my liking. i made pages on some manga a few years ago and they were all deleted due to lack of sources (each i gave 4 sources which were good). not just that but the community of editors are so autistic

There is already a wiki that accepts any sourced article

Do an internet search, I can't recall the name

>>59421290

its called everipedia.com and already exists

>>59421755
This.
https://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism

>>59421814
a common opinion it seems. i agree about 2007. it truely was the septic year for the internet

There was a huge fight about whether or not to delete """unnotable"""" articles between Wikipedia staff. It's a shame the exclusionaries won. Jimmy himself was an inclusionary.

File: iu[1].png (40KB, 135x196px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 135x196px

Am I the only one who's glad that Wikipedia is resisting efforts to turn it into an indiscriminate agglomeration of meaningless trivia?

>>59421290

never gonna work in a million years

Be prepared to fight a level 54 aspie in the talk section

Or you can just start a website for your friend. remember what you are trying to do is get his name to come up when you google him.

>>59423136
All knowledge is esoteric

>>59423246
Some is more esoteric than others

>>59423348
doesn't matter

>>59421401
kek

>>59421290
>who did many things
What did your programmer friend do OP?

>>59423136
Wikipedia has been getting more and more shit.
It just used to be 'normie' articles that the shills were successful at controlling the discussion and preventing the dissemination of 'unwanted' information. But over the past few years they have even managed to affect technology and engineering articles. They are becoming more and more obtuse, unclear, and difficult for the average reader to gain an understanding of the complex subjects by over-explaining and obscuring the concepts.

>>59423136
No, but the number of people who a. have something to gain from lowered barriers for notability and reliability, and b. don't care about how that would affect wikipedia as a whole is only increasing as non-technical people (and their politics) take over the internet. And unlike the classic garage bands and indian businessmen who want articles about themselves, many are proper sociopaths capable of gaining influence by contributing to communities.

>>59423576
are you sure you aren't just stupid?