I’d say the same. There are more famous people than you (no offense) available and their Wikipedia article usually is not existing or simply too short.
i want someone to give breakcore a decent write up on wikipedia the entry at the moment is totally out of date and entirely lame.
what if we all actually did this?
put up some music on archive.org put up all Our* links, and linked to each others wikipage?
then here in this thread, we pasted what we wrote about ourselves, and when the troll that lives under the bridge wakes up, deletes the entry, we just wait till the troll goes back to sleep and another one of us posts the other one of us’s page. XD
teamwork! XD
Or, we could just write non-sucky music that people actually like… and then gain a reputation the correct way. 
I wonder if there is a top secret “ghost writer” service that sells a package that guarantees your entry on wikipedia. Not that that would be right as it would make wikipedia contain more bulsh!t than it already does…but it would be neat to know that for a little bit of cash, I’ll have a wiki article complete with authentic looking article references, google results, and whatever it takes…I’d want my wiki article to say i took minimalism to a whole new level.
Wikibation, that’s what this is … 
or make a page for the renoise board - that way we get all the google hits for renoise too! and everyone can spam away to their hearts content
Nothing like a bit of shameless self promotion.
This is the right way.
And be aware that the links on a wikipedia page are stated as “no-follow”, so the google bot won’t take them into account for ranking of the websites pointed at.
i was going to wait until someone makes a wikipedia entry about me. that would somehow indicate success 
esaruoho: I don’t want to diss trepain with this, but you have been around since the 90’s and had a major impact on alot of people in the past, including other professional artists, so you definately deserve a wiki-page.
And yes, I think you should wait until someone else creates a wiki-page for you, just making your own is not the way to do. Once someone made it you can still edit it to make it correct, but to create it in the first place… No.
So set up a system where you add eachother to wiki?
It doesn’t matter if you add your own page or if your friend or your fan adds the page. As long as it qualifies with Wikipedia rules on this. You need to be notable, and article has to state what makes you notable. Also, all the info needs to be verifiable by linked resources. And the resources may not be self published ie. blog. You may use your project website as source, but only on basic data. Other than that, you need to refer to third party news articles in music magazines and stuff like that. If there is no news articles about you in online music zines then you can easily assume that you are not notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia.
hi looza, i think i just woke up so i dont think im really comprehending whats being said. i do however note that:
"This page has been deleted. The deletion log for the page is provided below for reference.
- 00:43, 19 July 2008 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted “C64 Messiah” (Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: Not notable. using TW)"
i bumped into a lackluster entry on wikipedia and was surprised it was there, in may 2005. of course, i know who illbilly is, and yes, i’ve edited it on/off over the years to make it correct and precise.
stuff like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=…oldid=158882609
ive found that quoting discogs for discography stuff works and is considered valid 3rd party information. same with interviews that pop up on webzines or actual printed magazines. it appears that some of them (wikipedia editors) just demand any kind of reference to anything and dont really care, as long as it looks like there’s loads and loads of references. i wouldnt try fake references tho…
Yeah, well, you just need to prove that you are notable. Other than that, nobody cares. 
On your article though. I would recommend you to upload a photo of yourself and mark it as self created CC or GFDL licenced. If you don’t mark it like that it will get deleted really quickly.
thanks,however, all those specifications make it not really that interesting to do it. wikimedia, wikipedia, this licence, that licence, whers its from, who took it, etc. ill put one in … maybe december.
Yeah, it actually goes worse every day. Nowadays it’s pretty hard to even keep CC licenced images in there. If there is some sort of typo in the explanation texts for example, the copyright freaks rather delete it than fix the typo.
I’m VERY glad Wiki got more strict.
It helps its (still questionable) credibility.
Scaring off people like us helps 