I just looked at the wikipedia entry for Bruce to see if anything had been added since the last time I looked ( about  a year ago) and found that the entry for Bruce had been deleted 7th Jan 2009. Looking further at the reason for deletion I found this -

' The result was delete. The article lacks reliable sources that are independent of the author's own web-site, and the remainder have not been verified. Having been published does not make one individual notable.'

I find this strange, particularly when, people such as the glamour model Katie Price merit 3778 words !

Any comments ?

Dave

I knew about this and I thought it was absurd.

I think Bruce's ego can handle it.

All they have to do is google afterlife and they're here. Who needs them...wikipedia, I mean.

While I doubt Bruce is terribly upset about this It's quite disturbing that now the Wikipedia people themselves are the ones to decide who is notable and of course what knowledge is worth knowing and recording.

I always believed Wikipedia was a sort of community based thing and thus the larger community were the ones making the decisions, as it should be, but perhaps not.

I dare say he will be up there again and in a much better fashion tool. Bruce totally ROCKs and we know it.

Bruce does totally ROCK. Maybe Wikipedia is just 'For Your Entertainment'...

It may be unwanted by him but I think Bruce's fame is truly on the way and soon.

I'm sure Bruce's shoulders are broad enough ( as they say ).... my concern is that wikipedia serves as an entry point for someone who wants to know about something. From reading the comments accompanying the deletion I could see that they had'nt even bothered to look into what they were deleting, it was enough that it concerned 'kooky' subject matter !

Dave

That bugged me too. I only use wiki now to look up to see if someone has died....wiki is dying in my opinion.

About Bruce's Wikipedia page, I seem to recall that several months ago there was a warning on his page that if people didn't update and enhance the page with more info, that the page would have to be deleted.  I don't remember the rules and reasons, but I didn't see anything about notability. 

I gathered that it had to do with contribution, in that if a page has little contribution then it is essentially taking up space. 

I'm assuming, too, that anyone can go in there and create a page if they want...according to whatever Wiki's guidelines are but I haven't looked into what's required.

Maybe it's something we can all look into doing??

I'm no expert on Bruce but I would be happy to help in anyway I can. I just remember those negative comments about him and they made my blood boil...Let's show them, I say.

Speaking of Wikipedia....BBC article today

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8379566.stm

So do we take the opportunity to put bruce up there or let it go the way of the dodo bird?

I imagine anyone would just google "Robert Bruce" and find thiere way to his website, astraldynamics.com  ....maybe that is a better result afterall.  I've never used wikipedia much, certainly not when there are better sources available.

It's nice to advocate for those we like, certainly.  But not sure how much of a difference it would really make.  And websites that make rules and rulings that irritate their visitors are generally on the way out.

Just my 2 cents,
Montana

I believe they were talking about Bruce Moen.. Robert Bruce does have a wikipedia page  :D

Oh well, Dude,

Ultimately OUI are all one.  ;)

My apologies~  I was wandering around the site and noted some discussion about R Bruce, and got them mixed.  Hare-brained nonetheless.

-Montana

No problem Montana, I confuse Bruce and Bruce all the time when I'm reading the boards. We talk about a lot of different people here. Thanks for your input anyway. and nice to see you here.