[stock_toaster]

> And the really insidious thing about this, is the fundamental asymmetry of effort between creation and deletion. Creating a Wikipedia article can take hours, days, or longer, of effort. Tagging an article as AfD takes a few seconds. The actual deletion (once whatever discussion happens) probably takes even less time.

Not really relevant in this case (that the article talks about), but I don't think that it is so cut and dry as "someone spent time on this so we have to keep it". Consider AI spam, or a company (or government!) paying, or forcing!, people to write articles with whatever focus/leaning/slant they desire. It seems like a hard problem!

Maybe people forget how things were before wikipedia existed? Like many things run primarily by volunteers, it is messy and imperfect. It's arguably still pretty great, and I'm glad it is around.

[lambdaone]

The deletion discussion also takes time and consensus, and even then isn't irreversible; you can move the text to draftspace, [1] and try again when you do have proof of notability. Even if the article is deleted before you can respond you can always get a deletion review [0] get your article text back via temporary undeletion and move that to draftspace.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drafts

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review

[qingcharles]

Right. I had an article I spent a bunch of time on last year that didn't pass muster for notability (first time I've had this happen) and shoved into draftspace where I got to edit it and retry it (unsuccessfully) a couple of times.

It was an article that really just slipped between the cracks of the rules, probably like the Odin one. All I did was take a breather for a few weeks, come back, edit it judiciously down to its core and resubmit it. It passed.

If Odin is important enough then one day there will be enough relevant citations to make it notable and it will be approved. Take a breather and come back.

[lambdaone]

Actually, I see the article has already been moved to draftspace, so nothing has been lost, except visibility, for which you will have to establish notability; you have six months to work on this before it gets deleted, and you can always go back for as many tries as you like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Odin_(programming_langua...

[pwdisswordfishq]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_i...

[pphysch]

The fact is GingerBill or someone else could have kept the article up with enough money spent on the right PR firm that knows how to turn the Wikipedia knobs.

[hatefulheart]

This is also why the conclusion of the article is extremely bizarre. I’m not keeping my eyes peeled for more articles from this individual.

[mindcrime]

Not really relevant in this case (that the article talks about), but I don't think that it is so cut and dry as "someone spent time on this so we have to keep it".

No, and I'm not arguing for that. Just pointing out that that insidious nature makes contributing to Wikipedia a questionable activity for (a few|some|many|???) people.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for having NO standards at all for what's included, but I think there's room to rethink the nature of some of those standards.