:A simple poll of the political, religious, scientific and economic views of the Wikipedia administrators would illustrate the problem. But I don't expect any such poll to be published.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:03, 6 February 2007 (EST)
::Well, if you've had bad experiences in the past, perhaps it's asking for frustration to ask you to try again...
::Re the deletion of the Conservapedia article, I've tried to tweak the description without blunting your criticism.
::Wikipedia ''does'' have (numerous!) policies regarding deletion.
::In most straightforward cases, of which the Conservapedia article was one, yes, it really amounts to a 2/3 vote for deletion by anonymous voters. It is formally "not a vote." The closing admin (who is whoever happens to be around and closing deletion articles that day) can exercise judgement. That usually only comes into play in situations where the admin judges there to have been voting irregularities, such as "sockpuppetry" (multiple voting by one person under several different user accounts) or "meatpuppetry" (when a person e.g. posts on a blog asking lots of people to come to Wikipedia, create new accounts, and vote). (It is usually thought to be suspicious when a new account's first edit is to a deletion discussion, for example). In such cases, or when the vote is actually close to 2/3, an admin ''will'' usually explain the decision.
::There is also a "deletion review" process that is available when an admin appears to have acted arbitrarily. My personal opinion is that this particular deletion was so cut and dried that asking for deletion review would just result in frustration, so I don't recommend trying.
::By the way, I think you ''greatly'' overestimate the degree to which admins influence content on Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:17, 6 February 2007 (EST)