Percisely, this is why sometimes articles that do not have very good notability gets included without problems. Wikipedians are biased, like any other people, which means some articles may never get challenged for notability, and some editors may decide to keep the article that would normally fail notability test. Other times, mainly but not exclusively biographies of living people, are often placed with a much higher notability standard, mainly due to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_biography_controversy
In fact Wikipedia has a page called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR
which encourages editors to ignore policies and guidelines that hinders them from improving Wikipedia. (How well this policy is applied these days, I honestly do not know)
However, just because notability is a guideline, doesn't mean I should make up a word like "xryzcbslmrwp463vnfd" and define that using Wikipedia.
Now, with regards to wikipedia admins deleting articles overzealously, this is indeed a problem in my opionion, and I have undeleted articles that would of be kept if it was actually discussed in Articles for Deletion. The thing is, most Wikipedia newbies, do not know how to contest the deletion of their article, or even know they should be contesting it because the notability is there and can be asserted.
I'm taking your reasonable tone w/r to the application of the notability guidelines with a grain of salt.
I find it fascinating that whenever a WP deletionist bothers to engage with the world outside of WP, they act like everything they do is perfectly reasonable and justified. Yet you and I both know that the actual reality is that its virtually impossible to add knowledge/contribute to WP these days without having that material deleted...often within minutes.
The original person who nominated these for deletion did it in bad faith, and the admins treated it like a legitimate deletion -- as if he had nominated litter like "xryzcbslmrwp463vnfd" for deletion. However, reasonable people viewed the entire debacle not as cleaning up the litter off the street, but the same as destructive vandalism and were right to do so.
Yeah, sure, after an interminable, and completely opaque process, involving two (2) rounds of discussion, the articles were restored (after first being deleted). But in every case involving the original deletion by an admin, there was both ample reference material verifying the content of the articles, and a clear consensus to keep the articles.
I bring this up not because it's unusual, or I have a particular axe to grind regarding the inclusion/exclusion of languages in WP, but because it's absolutely typical of the kind of crap not only new users have to suffer through, but even active contributors.
Point being, contributing to WP is a waste of time, with hours and hours of work being hauled off to /dev/null at the whim of an overzealous editor with some kind of chip on their shoulder.
The current crop of admins and editors on the site seem to be suffering from the mistaken that the point of WP is not to collect the world's knowledge, but to replicate a 19th century print encyclopedia that just "happens" to have a few pop-culture topics in them, completely oblivious to the magnificent advancements of modern technology.
And like any in-group, the highly embedded clique of admins and editors refuse to self-police, instead they'll reinforce the bad decisions of their brothers-in-arms.
WP had so much promise, but it's taken half a decade for any of the people who actually run the site to finally notice this culture of nepotism, laziness, exclusion and failure that's completely permeated the site.
In fact Wikipedia has a page called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR which encourages editors to ignore policies and guidelines that hinders them from improving Wikipedia. (How well this policy is applied these days, I honestly do not know)
However, just because notability is a guideline, doesn't mean I should make up a word like "xryzcbslmrwp463vnfd" and define that using Wikipedia.
Now, with regards to wikipedia admins deleting articles overzealously, this is indeed a problem in my opionion, and I have undeleted articles that would of be kept if it was actually discussed in Articles for Deletion. The thing is, most Wikipedia newbies, do not know how to contest the deletion of their article, or even know they should be contesting it because the notability is there and can be asserted.