In October 2010, I authored my first Wikipedia entry[1] and it was immediately tagged for speedy deletion by an admin named Academic Challenger[2], a person who proudly proclaims "I have deleted over 10000 pages from Wikipedia that meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion."
The problem is that he indiscriminately tags most articles for speedy deletion. As my article met the Wikipedia standard for "noteworthiness" I was determined to fight this abuse of power, which I did and through the help of another admin (who unsurprisingly was familiar with Academic Challenger) and restored the page, which is still up today and has been edited by many people who are not me.
Wikipedia clearly struggles with content review and creation, but it overall has been highly successful. The question seems to be, moving forward, how might maintain the ethos of Wikipedia in a changing world?
Wikipedia admin here. Re your question, that's because you've accused the wrong editor.[1] :-)
Looking at the article at the time it was nominated,[2] there isn't much of an explicit claim to being notable under Wikipedia's policies.[3] However, it was nominated for speedy deletion all of seven minutes after you created it—pretty quick, something I never like to see for articles that fall into a grey area.
Perhaps I have remembered incorrectly. I am far out of my depth of knowledge, so I defer to your information. Also please excuse my conflation of notability and "noteworthiness". As you can see and I think we can understand, as my first entry, I didn't know exactly how and what to do.
In spite of this, I have this distinct memory of AC being a problem, I will look through my change log (Tlow03) and see if perhaps the article was moved or renamed from my original attempt.
Also thank you for this clarification and you're right I think it probably was a grey area, but I do think the compound in question is a novel hand sanitizer that is the only of it's kind I know of.
DISCLAIMER: I have no affiliation with the company at this time, a friend once worked there, but I do not and never have had any financial interest.
Update: Yes the "boom your contribution is gone and doesn't belong here" almost the moment you write it feels very hostile.
That post didn't look particularly noteworthy to me, but I remember creating a similar page regarding a casual wear company (called "Lost..." if I recall) that I got distracted with one time. I saw their logos in my local mall in every department store. I spent a lot of time researching and writing up an article on the company. Then it got deleted. Probably not particularly noteworthy either, even if at one time it was a national brand.
I also wrote up a thorough discussion of various kinds of permanent life insurance contracts (I was a financial advisor at the time, and I had spent a lot of time studying them, and wanted others to have that information). I think the bulk of my contribution managed to get redacted at some point, but it lives on in the version control, forever.
There's a lot of stakeholders to Wikipedia: the subjects of articles and their followers, hawkish community members who try to control new and changed content, and consultants who charge money to change the framing of subjects on the site.
As a result, pages tend to be flattering of their subjects, unless the subjects don't have a lot of followers who speak the language that the page is written in. And new pages are likely to be deleted unless you have the cooperation of community members who will advocate for it when you start focusing on something else.
Now I mostly write up Python on Stack Overflow, where I get credit for my answers in terms of valuable internet points, which reflects my reputation in the community.
Perhaps Wikipedia could learn something from Stack Overflow. But unfortunately, it looks like they have incentivized deleting content and creating value for subjects over creating value for readers.
The parent response exhibits, politely, typical problems I've experienced with Wikipedia editing. It debates details, policies (with citations), customs, but does not address the actual problem (in this case, the hassles of contributing) or help advance the core mission, which is the content.
My experiences are similar to the GP, and often the responses aren't nearly as polite as the parent. It's just not worth the time to contribute.
You are absolutely right and I'm surprised more people are not calling that person out for what you describe. The person even notes that the article was nominated for speedy deletion __seven minutes__ after it was created. That is insane!
Very much reminds me of the time Around 2008 when Jimmy Wales' article about an SA restaurant was deleted for similar reasons[1]. Looks like for all its discussion the Wiki community has learned nothing.
Wikipedia clearly struggles with content review and creation, but it overall has been highly successful. The question seems to be, moving forward, how might maintain the ethos of Wikipedia in a changing world?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanwell
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Academic_Challenger Looking at the revision history, I do not see Academic Challenger's action in the logs of the talk page. Anyone know why?