But it's a new article. How should it be improved if not encouraging people to edit it? Isn't that the whole idea behind Wikipedia? There is no need for this process to be contentious. All it needed to be unflagged not notable was some references. I went and Googled up 5 articles; it was painless enough. Where is the abuse?
The article had no content because it was just made; it started with the opinions of one person. That's why it was requested for people to improve it. That's what Wikipedia does, it writes and improves encyclopedia articles by crowdsourcing. Saying it's an abuse because the article is bad is ridiculous. That's the whole point -- to fix the article. And no, it is not abuse. It's an intended use of the system. You are saying it is an abuse because it is controversial? That seems inconsistent, this site thrives on debate and in this case such debate can only improve the quality of the article.
I still don't get it. I went and reedited the article, I would encourage you to give it another pass.
The article had no content because it was just made; it started with the opinions of one person. That's why it was requested for people to improve it. That's what Wikipedia does, it writes and improves encyclopedia articles by crowdsourcing. Saying it's an abuse because the article is bad is ridiculous. That's the whole point -- to fix the article. And no, it is not abuse. It's an intended use of the system. You are saying it is an abuse because it is controversial? That seems inconsistent, this site thrives on debate and in this case such debate can only improve the quality of the article.
I still don't get it. I went and reedited the article, I would encourage you to give it another pass.