Thank you. There is almost 100,000 deleted articles. I don't get why they would do this to so many topics.
Self-promotion and non-notable content.
Pretty early in Wikipedia's existence all sorts of spammers and non-entities realized that they could use Wikipedia as their personal advertising billboard.
Lots of things that (arguably) don't belong in an encyclopedia have been added to Wikipedia too. For example, you could, arguably, have an article about every one of the 7 billion people on the planet and about what foods each of them like, etc.
Inclusionists might like all such articles to be included, but to the extent deletionists are effective, articles on non-notable subjects are deleted.
Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia though, not in any traditional sense. Just because they use that word in the byline doesn't mean that it makes sense to pretend that Wikipedia is a 1980's door-to-door-salesperson bound edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. And in the same sense, it makes no sense to try and apply the same standards and policies from an outdated legacy media format to an entirely new media format.
but to the extent deletionists are effective, articles on non-notable subjects are deleted.
The problem with this mind-set is the idea that there is some objective, universally applicable idea of what it means to be "non notable". There isn't.
Wikipedia doesn't claim that there is a universal objective definition for "notability". "Notability" is a term of art on Wikipedia. You can't win this argument with a dictionary.
There may be nothing in the world a true Wikipedian would rather do than explain the project's definition of a word like "Notability", at ponderous, relentless, unceasing length. So ignorance is no excuse! There's more documentation for this concept than there is for Postgres. RTFM, friend.
If you don't like Wikipedia's rules or think it could be something more, you are welcome to fork it.
I'm not trying to win any argument. shrug
RTFM
Been there, done that. Thanks for playing though.
It's currently up for speedy deletion, and will probably be removed soon.
I'm not convinced that most of this content was worth including on Wikipedia, but hey, if these people want to host it they should go for it.
It's a form of censorship, hence a form of thought control.
Can you explain what was so spammy about this one? https://nypost.com/2022/04/23/wikipedia-deletes-entry-for-hu...
Second, the article links to the archived comments about the deletion (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_delet...), wherein an editor explains
> This organization is only mentioned in connection with its famous founders, Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz, from whom it cannot inherit notability per WP:NORG. Every single source is a trivial mention in an article about the founders; that means it fails WP:GNG as well. Keeping it around additionally risks WP:BLPVIO, as this is a magnet for conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden.
Seems pretty clear cut to me. Write the parts that deserve to be in the Hunter Biden page in the Hunter Biden page. Don't make a stub article just so you can mention an otherwise unnotable company.
As the project at hand shows, if Wikipedia doesn’t want to host your page, you can simply publish elsewhere.
Of course if you want to make people look to your version instead of the one at wikipedia.org, you probably need to invest in marketing. In theory nothing stops you from becoming the new source of authority — after all Wikipedia has only held this role for less than twenty years, and nobody remembers what was the #1 result site for these search queries then.