Misleading title. "Wikipedia" didn't do anything; an Articles-for-Deletion (AfD) vote did. In the vote, which has a full change history, nobody spoke up for PeanutButter Wiki, nor were any of the sources mentioned in the comments here present in the original article. This was a totally normal, in-process deletion.
Should the closing admin have glanced at Google News? Probably. Note that one of the AfD votes here makes indirect references to external sources, implying that they only peripherally cover PBWiki as "just another wiki farm". Maybe that's fair, maybe not, but you can see why in a "debate" with no dissenters, this just got closed quickly.
The fix for this is trivial. Take the original content of the PBWiki Wikipedia article --- it's still around --- and paste it back into the article. Add the external sources to the end (don't even worry about style, someone else will fix it). Done. An article with genuine sourcing in Newsweek, Forbes, and the New York Times isn't going to be deleted.
I'm starting to see Wikipedians as cops with big mustaches. Mostly harmless, generally the good guys, but often symbolically overstepping their bounds.
I acknowledge the rigorous formalized system, but even a speedy response does not justify the offense.
It appears there is bias here. Instead of instructing us on how to participate, the members of the community should address it.
I'm not a member of the community. I am, however, telling you how the community works. Let me be as clear as I can, from experience: the community does not care what you think about it. It's a Greenland-sized snowball full of human frailties and weaknesses and effort, picking up every piece of information and drama it rolls over, and getting out in front of it to try to steer it is a great way to lose an otherwise enjoyable weekend.
Should the closing admin have glanced at Google News? Probably. Note that one of the AfD votes here makes indirect references to external sources, implying that they only peripherally cover PBWiki as "just another wiki farm". Maybe that's fair, maybe not, but you can see why in a "debate" with no dissenters, this just got closed quickly.
The fix for this is trivial. Take the original content of the PBWiki Wikipedia article --- it's still around --- and paste it back into the article. Add the external sources to the end (don't even worry about style, someone else will fix it). Done. An article with genuine sourcing in Newsweek, Forbes, and the New York Times isn't going to be deleted.
God I'm such a dork for knowing this stuff.