I understand why Wikipedia has barriers. But what I was saying is that they're out of control. Wikipedia does not manage to be respectable when ill-informed pe

I understand why Wikipedia has barriers. But what I was saying is that they're out of control. Wikipedia does not manage to be respectable when ill-informed people debate whether to delete an article that Wikipedia itself started and reach a "consensus" to do so without there being a consensus. What looks to you as a well-reasoned and thoroughly thought debate looks that way because you're probably not an expert in search marketing. It's like an amateur watching two programmers debate whether some other programmer is "notable" or not. If you're not a programmer, you probably have no idea. And the references that might seem reasonable perhaps aren't, if you're more educated. The Wikipedia "community" hasn't agreed with my assessment. The Wikipedia "community" that made this decision was one person, who when someone else raised the fact that I posted new, fresh arguments, decided unilaterally that if I thought those should be considered, I should submit a review request. The way it should work, he should have put that request in himself. At the very least, it sure should be a lot easier for anyone to put in such a request. As I detailed, I found it actually impossible to do so, because you can't request that a page that's been deleted to be reviewed on the review deletion page -- that page is only for pages in the current process of being reviewed. I call a confusing system that needs overhaul.