My article for Carrier_IQ was deleted as non-notable for obvious political reasons then recreated yaers later after the spin around the company had been settled. There may also be some intelligence community shenanigans.
It's a great way to delete uncomfortable historic facts. Now it's just a funny little story about a rootkit with no specific political intrigue at all.
not just that, just remember Donna Strickland they deleted her article because non-notable and then restored it after she won the Nobel Prize of physics... oops.
> It's a great way to delete uncomfortable historic facts. Now it's just a funny little story about a rootkit with no specific political intrigue at all.
Yes, but in my experience, this applies more to people than to some of the topics discussed in the article. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a city, town, village or hamlet in the US without a wikipedia page (as an example, take a look at Jack Wade, Alaska [1]), for example. And I don't imagine that rare moth species articles get taken down. But you have to have some kind of policy in place so that every individual on the planet doesn't have a wikipedia page.
The author actually brings this up in the article, and it seems that they are not likely to be deleted (baring vandalism due to their unique status being surfaced, I guess).
Spoiler for the interested, and it could be an artifact of the dataset the author used, but one of the commonalities between the least viewed articles is that their subject matter falls into a category that isn't usually eligible for deletion under Wikipedia content guidelines.
