User:Jsharpminor/Conspiracy

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This is an essay on Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcut

WP:WikiConspiracy

This page in a nutshell:

In a deletion debate, avoid saying that a media / liberal / right-wing / global conspiracy has prevented the normal coverage of a notable subject.
To fail to do this means that you have lost the argument before you've even begun.

So, you've been directed to this page because the deletion discussion for your article is not going well.

The article subject is amazing, a world-changer, but the danged Illuminati conspiracy has prevented this information from imparting this universe-shaking information to the world through the usual channels.

You're not alone. Help is near. Let me show you the next step.

Realize there's no conspiracy.

The function of the media is to report the news. We have a basic faith in it. For more discussion on this subject, see the many articles on conspiracy theory.

This faith is sometimes misplaced, but more often than not, it is well-founded.

You've just proven your opponents' point.

I'm sorry to be the one to inform you of this, but you have just conceded the point. In brief, let's look at it:

Wikipedia has a rule stating that there must be significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability.
The conspiracy prevents your source from being significantly covered in these reliable sources.
Therefore, there is no (or very little) significant coverage in reliable sources.
Whether or not the subject is inherently notable, the topic failes the significant coverage rule.

But what if that's not fair? Keep reading.

It's our community, these are the rules.

These are the rules that have been established, and they work for us. You are not entitled to have an article on Wikipedia; it's that simple. These rules have eliminated many silly articles, and are deemed by the community to be effective and simple enough. If you don't like the rules, be a voice for change! But until and unless that happens, we all have to abide by community consensus. And we all fall on the wrong side of the consensus sometimes. The difference between the great community members and the worst ones is nothing more than how we respond to the community -- especially when the verdicts aren't in our favor.

What should I do now?

That depends. If your entire purpose in coming to Wikipedia was because you were assigned to write the article on this subject by your boss or client, you need to step back and be grateful that I'm about to save you a lot of time. Such articles aren't the point of Wikipedia; we're not your publicity outlet.

If, on the other hand, you would like to help us build an encyclopedia, then pat yourself on the back. You've just navigated the waters of article creation. There's lots to do here. Even some new articles to write. Unfortunately, this just wasn't one of them.

Cheers!