That was me. I don't consider myself a deletionist, but this seemed like a pretty egregious example of something that does not meet the bar for having its own page.
I might be wrong :). You can go ahead and disagree with the proposed deletion; it's Wikipedia. I can assure you I am a very light editor. If there is a cabal, I am not a member.
Sorry, what? I made the comment above precisely to highlight the fact that the proposal was made by me, some random person, and it can easily be disputed by you, some random person, because everyone can (and should!) edit Wikipedia.
Not sure how GP is sarcasm. People use the Wikipedia rules all the time to suppress newcomers and keep them, get them sanctioned, and keep them from becoming better editors.
The idea of Wikipedia is to allow anyone to write articles. But in practice a newcomer has to have a lot of grit to keep content on the site because of the social structures that effectively make certain topics off-limits to newcomers. I like Wikipedia a lot but I have better things to do with my life than go to ArbCom when someone is effectively claiming ownership of a page.
That is an awesome trick, please let us know how! The account was created hours after the comments, and the comments no longer appear in the original commenter history.
For me, it isn't worth expending the mental energy editing Wikipedia. I'd be exhausted seeing the arbitrary deletion of articles like this; fighting Wikipedia policy warriors, who have all the WP:TLA and WP:FLA rules memorized; fighting PoV warriors, the successful ones who are also policy warriors; fighting cliques who take unofficial ownership of articles.
And maybe it's just me, but I don't get the impression that most very light editors of Wikipedia have even made a single proposal for deletion.
I don't have the rules memorized. I didn't know what WP:TLA or WP:FLA was until you mentioned them, and I had to look up the rules for notability of events.
It's also worth pointing out that the conflict and tedium you anticipated just didn't materialize. An anonymous editor reverted my proposal with a one-line rebuttal and that looks like the end of the story.
I know the phenomenon you are describing, and it is real. I just don't think it's a fair description of what happened here. I made a well-intentioned editorial decision, and when I saw grumbling here, I went out of my way to acknowledge my fallibility and to point out my action could be reversed.
I wasn't expecting to be called out as an example of Everything Wrong With Wikipedia These Days, though that's exactly what the comments and downvotes in this thread feel like. I'm pretty bummed about it.
I felt tricked, since posting a link directly to the video would have sufficed. I suppose a submission that links to Wikipedia attracts more clicks and upvotes. However, the article has very little substance and looks to be essentially a wrapper around a YouTube video link.
