4 ms·

I don't understand why you were enraged. The editor who spoke with you made it very clear what was needed to prove notability (reliable secondary sources) and p

I don't understand why you were enraged. The editor who spoke with you made it very clear what was needed to prove notability (reliable secondary sources) and politely explained things to you while linking to official policy. I'd hardly call them privileged. It'd be another story if they said something like "I don't want this article on my encyclopedia"; he even recommended using the IBM DeveloperWorks link. The tag that was on the article is merely a signal to editors that the article needs better sourcing. To be deleted, it'd need to be nominated, where it would need to be proven that the topic is non-notable, so the system actually works in favor of keeping articles that are actually notable. It might seem like the rules are arbitrary or wielded by wikilawyers but if you read them they're not that bad. I don't agree with all of them, but "when in Rome..."

thyrsus 11y ago
I was the one that found the IBM link. The notability skeptic liked it, but not enough to think that was sufficient for notability. After I gave up, someone with more influence came along and bigfooted the issue. I have no visibility into why one person's opinion is more important than another's - I assume it's because they've done something like devoted 10,000 hours to editing - but I've got no time to for environments that value fanatacism over reasoned argument. And the Tool Support section - the most valuable part of the page, and which I vehemently contend constitutes essential secondary source material - remains deleted. It took me 15 minutes of digging through the page history to find it, which I'd never do if I didn't already know it was there.