Dear all, It appears that my persistent questioning of the decisions to delete pages related to some networks doing significant work, but which might not be sufficiently visible in cyberspace (or the English-dominated sections of it) seems to have led someone to decide to delete a page referring to me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Noronha ! The grounds given are "borderline notability". Not that this matters.... It's amusing to see oneself being shifted from being a "notable Wikipedian" to "borderline notability" over a short period of time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Noronha&diff=124590… I would still maintain that those deleting pages need to act with responsibility. Besides, the success of Wikipedia (as the 11th most-visited site in the world, according to alexa.com) should not lead to arrogance or unhelpfulness that discourages those attempting to get heard in cyberspace (mostly with legitimate entries in the Wikipedia, but maybe finding it difficult to cope with the one-size-fits-all criteria that is prescribed, of notability, proper referencing etc.... ). In one particular example, a page was sought to be deleted (and links removed) because of a strange mix of reasons. From arguments that it had "only" 200+ members in its network, to other points of view that it lacked sufficient references, or was more suited to an official website rather than for Wikipedia. If this was so, would it not help if the page could be improved, rather than deleted. (As one editor once told me, good naturedly, "If I want to give you a reason to block your article, I could give you any one of 31 good reasons for it." Yeah, reasons are easy to come by, once someone's mind is made up.) Needless to say, I would not bother to make a case for the retention of a page focussing on me. It would be a relief, in fact, if the page went off! Take a look at its history: The page was started on 19:07, 4 August 2005 by Nichalp. It was subsequently edited by others. When I came across it, I realised that my name had initially been spelt wrong. Besides, there were inaccuracies in my description (there is a difference, surely, in being " actively involved in the Indian Free Software Foundation" and writing about it... I am definitely not "a known (sic) for his articles on Christianity" (admittedly am fairly curious about happenings there, though I don't subscribe to the religion I was born in) ... by that time, I had virtually stopped writing (but subsequently resumed, on another theme) for the Indo-Asian News Service in New Delhi... In addition, I'm not "founder" of BytesForAll, as mentioned, but a co-founder. A number of the websites and blogs mentioned were either outdated or non-functional, and there were new ones not noticed. After waiting awhile, I realised nobody would probably make these corrections, and did so under my own name.... which is actually not supposed to be the Wikipedia is to work. That was in late Jan-early Feb 2006 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Noronha&action=hist… ) So, what's the point I'm making? * Rather than handle the message, someone here seems to be intent on shooting the messenger! The speedy deletions of pages of organisations whose work is widely noticed and is certainly relevant to the Third World (or the so-called "developing world") is unfair. * There should be good reason for deletion of any page (this should not be taken to mean that I'm making even an indirect case for my page... I have no problem if it's deleted), and those exercising the decision should preferably be aware of the subject-matter, and its relevance, even if in niche areas. * Special care needs to be taken about groups working in non-English languages and those on the so-called "periphery" (i.e. not in the "big cities that matter" or the bigger nations that have so many of their denizens active in cyberspace). Many such groups might not be visible enough in cyberspace, but that hardly means their work is not relevant! * How will Wikipedia balance its speedy growth in popularity, against the tendency to flood it with irrelevant posts, and also be fair to those who deserve to be on it without unnecessary deletions? * At the end of the day, I believe an "alternate modelled" encyclopedia also needs to be alternate enough to take a wider view of our world. Wikipedia need not be -- indeed, should not be -- constrained by the top-down hierarchical restricted vision of traditional encyclopedias. Or else, it will come to be dismissed as an initiative that is alternative in its organising structure, but not in its vision. Lastly, may I add that I will continue to be a supporter of the Wikipedia, and seek help for those with a record of adding to this experiment to continue doing so, rather than getting caught up in page-deletion battles. Regards, Frederick "FN" Noronha Goa, India. -- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com Konkani Wikipedia (under incubation) needs your help! http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok