This isn't about Wikipedia's practice of deleting entries, which is documented in huge, sprawling, mind-numbing detail, accompanied by 3x the word count of huge, sprawling, mind-numbing debates about the wisdom of those policies.
What it is instead is an article about one guy's side project, "Deletionpedia", which is a wiki that captures the pages Wikipedia deletes. That article hasn't even been deleted; it's just (apparently) been put up for deletion.
Wikipedia is a huge project. You can put Bill Gates' article up for deletion right now. Nobody will stop you. The debate will be short (I'd expect "seconds, not minutes"), but that's because everyone knows who Bill Gates is, and nobody knows what Deletionpedia is, which means it lives or dies on its merits, and not name ID.
Can we stop making mountains out of molehills now?
What it is instead is an article about one guy's side project, "Deletionpedia", which is a wiki that captures the pages Wikipedia deletes. That article hasn't even been deleted; it's just (apparently) been put up for deletion.
Wikipedia is a huge project. You can put Bill Gates' article up for deletion right now. Nobody will stop you. The debate will be short (I'd expect "seconds, not minutes"), but that's because everyone knows who Bill Gates is, and nobody knows what Deletionpedia is, which means it lives or dies on its merits, and not name ID.
Can we stop making mountains out of molehills now?