lightspeed wrote:The argument I have is, isn't Wikipedia's main objective for authors to perform research and contribute to an article with as much information they can discover or uncover - with the context that such information is relevant to the article/subject matter.
No, not really. That isn't even their
stated objective, much less their actual objective.
Think of it this way: The way to make a board game, such as Monopoly, Risk, or Life, more fun is not to make the board larger, or make the squares on the board larger or more elaborate. That might actually make the game
less fun. What makes the game more fun is finding other players who behave in ways that make you happy that you're beating them.
What happened to you on Wikipedia, after you added that word "renowned," was create a magnet for a certain type of person - a person who doesn't like seeing other people lionized or praised while they are not being lionized or praised. You might have thought these people were homophobes, targeting the Erica Andrews article because she was LGBT, but I wouldn't make that assumption. They do this for fun, and the topic isn't necessarily all that important to them. These people are sharks, and you literally poured blood into the water.
In Qworty's case, IMO it became addictive after a while - he started out by doing it to people he knew and disliked, but found out that he enjoyed it so much that he ran out of targets and started attacking people like Erica Andrews and Amanda Filipacchi, people he probably had never heard of before. He was just getting a "fix" in those cases.
To compare Ms Andrews' article to an American president's article is beyond ridiculous.
Good thing I didn't do that, then!
Regardless of whether I was overzealous with information or not, it did not warrant being so hostile, so nasty and vile to me or to damage the article through deletionism.
You have to read up on the subject of narcissism and antisocial personalities to properly understand that. You can start with the Wikipedia articles on the subject, but as always, they should be treated as only a "starting point."
(Edit) Btw, you should also try to stop thinking of these processes in Wikipedian terms, such as "deletionism." What you experienced was not "deletionism," even in their conception of the term. In point of fact, there is really no such thing as "deletionism" in any practical sense on Wikipedia. It's a red herring, and it exists mostly to confuse and distract people like yourself into thinking there's some sort of overarching ideological basis for what goes on there, when there really isn't.