[DanBC]

IMO Wikipedia is far far worse.

At least SO is clear and honest and upfront about it, and they don't have megabytes of rules and guidelines and essays and etc to follow.

I do understand the frustration of having good interesting questions closed. (Especially if it's for dumb reasons.)

Wikipedia can feel very toxic. Even if you're avoiding the obvious hot-button topics.

[canttestthis]

Which policy do you have a problem with? I've been an active Wikipedia editor in the past and I think the problem has less to do with removing content, but rather maintaining existing content.

[carbocation]

The recent deletion of lutusp / Paul Lutus's article [1] seems to be a reasonable reflection of the problem with Wikipedia, in my opinion.

[1] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lutus

[canttestthis]

Have you read the discussion thread? [1] He doesn't have enough notability to warrant a dedicated article, and a redirect to the Apple Writer article is sufficient. And Paul himself chimed in asking for the article to be either deleted (which it was), or "frozen against vandalism", which is only applied in extreme cases.

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

[carbocation]

> He doesn't have enough notability to warrant a dedicated article

You say this as if it were just so. I don't happen to agree.

[tptacek]

Well, what are some citable sources on Paul Lutus that don't principally pertain to his having authored Apple Writer?

[shrughes]

Look at some older versions in the page history (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EnTerr/Paul_...) before the page got whittled down before some deletion attempt, and you can find quite a few.