[leejo]

You're basically reinforcing my arguments - these are the policies, deal with it.

I believe the 7 day deadline to avoid the deletion of 20+ years of history is destructive because most of the people that would be notified of this have long since moved on, no longer care, or are off Wikipedia.

The cursory Googling by those who have the power to delete is also concerning. As stated elsewhere in this discussion, Google hasn't been great for search for a long time.

[Telaneo]

The policies are there for good reason most of the time, and rarely without there having been a lot of talk about what said policy should be. I found them very helpful during my time editing, since they accurately reflect what happens and why, with the whole process being transparent. Maybe I'm just biased.

Google isn't the end-all-be-all of sourcing, as has been shown by the articles that have been kept. If you can find reliable sources, it will be kept. Google is just the final nail in the coffin.

[leejo]

There it is, right? Seven days and twenty years, gone. To quote, it is "the slow decline, the emptying out, and the long, long process of forgetting".

Wikipedia's deletion proposals are the online equivalent of putting a small poster on a village noticeboard and being surprised that the entire world doesn't see it.

It's disgraceful.

[Telaneo]

It isn't Wikipedia's job nor mission to remember. The Internet Archive took on that mission. Hence why you can still find the article there. The article isn't gone. It's a bit less accessible. I love them both, but they work in very different ways.