User:MurderByDeadcopy/sandbox 3

How when deletionists win, everybody loses!
Or how deletionist are actually defeating their own goals.

AfD's are incredible time sinks!

We are trying to build, not break down, Wikipedia. However, deletionism is about breaking down, not building anything.

manipulation, propaganda

How deletionists hide their true reasons to delete
Bare notability

Wikipedia's acceptable environment of harassment
Most harassment on Wikipedia consists of name calling, excessive article tagging, wikilawyerig, accusations of SPI, COI, sock or meat puppeting. These types of harassment is usually done by established editors with cabal connections meaning that new editors either have to accept constant harassment or leave Wikipedia. The longer an editor stays on in this type of environment, the greater the probability of them joining in and bullying new editors.

How Wikipedia's current culture is encouraging COI editing
Odd undue obsession over a minor Wikipedia problem

While on the surface, Wikipedia purports to be about writing an Encyclopedia, the majority of its rules has to do with limiting and eliminating who can edit.

Lacking "notability"!
When articles are listed for deletion on the grounds of the topic's notability, the creators of such articles often ask how they could write better articles about that topic. But they are, in fact, asking the wrong question. There are many notability guidelines for different types of articles, but when a notability issue is invoked, no matter what the topic is, it always boils down to each editors own interpretation of NOTABILITY!

This means that an editor must add information to an article which fits every editor's own individual interpretation of the notability guideline. Not a better writing style. Not a more neutral wording. Not surrendering the redaction to another person to circumvent conflict of interest guidelines. Not the removal of material potentially regarded as promotional. Not a more explicit referencing from primary sources. Not even a promise that, soon, the subject will meet the notability guidelines. Nothing. None of these things address the problem. The problem is not with the article itself. The problem is with the term - notability!

Editors who protest against deletion nominations of articles they create are often more knowledgable about the topic then the nominator. Our conflict of interest guidelines do not explicitly imply preventing anyone from creating or editing articles about themselves, however, if anyone believes an editor does have any conflict of interest, it will be used against said editor. People who create articles about themselves or projects they are involved in can do something when their articles are deleted on notability grounds. But it can only be done off-wiki. They can get others to notice them or their projects first. Oftentimes, these efforts only makes the situation worse!

For example: If an article had been posted in 2001 (Wikipedia's first year) about the American recording artist and record producer Akon, it would probably have been deleted for lack of the man's notability, and with good reason. Even in 2004, when the actual first version of the biographic article about Akon was posted, another editor might have argued that it was too soon for an encyclopedic mention of this new hip-hop sensation (and it probably was). But little by little, reporters and other writers took notice of this popular phenomenon and, voilà! the man became, in Wikipedia's eyes, WP:Notable, with WP:Reliable sources that were used to back up the information in the article. At that point no editor could credibly claim that Akon was not Notable. It is amazing what can happen when WIkipedia allows an article to grow!

In fact, if the current notability guidelines for websites had been applied in 2001 (Wikipedia's first year), this encyclopedia would not have been able to maintain an article about itself. Nowadays, it would be unthinkable for Wikipedia to not have such an article. It is also an obvious conflict of interest.

Wikipedia has more than 5 million articles now. Many of those do not do justice to the importance of their subjects (we believe the technical term would be "crappy"), but at least they do establish that the subject has been noticed by third parties before the Wikipedia article was started. Bad writing is not an argument for deletion except in extreme cases, but an otherwise brilliantly written article may be deleted without hesitation if its topic does not meet the relevant notability guidelines.


 * Notability


 * Significant coverage - One can be plenty, however, at times 20 isn't be enough.


 * Civility - Only applies to new editors


 * NPOV - Is the cabal's POV.


 * Consensus - What the cabal wants!

How to AfD canvass like a pro  on Wikipedia!

Say it ain't so!

-

Condoning Bullying

Another editor lost through bullying