Try these steps. First, find sources for a new article on the Internet. There may already be a list of such sources in the entry on the requested articles page. Second, write a new article that site's feeds reliable sources. Third, ask for a history-only undeletion of the previous article "behind" the current one. Finally, integrate the information that was in the last revision of the deleted article.

That's not how it works. Something becomes notable when unaffiliated reliable sources have covered it. This notability, if established, does not decrease over time. Such a decrease would require the existing reliable sources to stop existing. The reason Wikipedia has a notability requirement in the first place is that an article about a non-notable subject has no reliable sources that it can cite about anything.

So can cyclists use this to proceed through an intersection with miscalibrated vehicle sensors without having to wait several minutes for a motor vehicle to pull up behind? I don't know about other countries, but not every US state has a dead red law allowing one to proceed with caution through a malfunctioning signal.

You have a point about a libertarian source. But a communist source would be considered leftist by both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. What you're looking for is opposing perceptions of bias from other media.

True, but UPS MI passes parcels to USPS for last mile delivery.

The high up elite (administrators) want to implement the consensus that the end users have reached. The higher up elite (WMF staff) are the ones boisting feta on readers.

Thanks. I have submitted your comment to the record.

Is there substantial coverage from several people who are "unaffiliated" (part of the Nimrod team)?

No, it's more like "Buck Feta".

MediaWiki has a tool called "common.js" to let an admin edit the sitewide JavaScript. Wikimedia Foundation staff are trying to push unpopular user interface changes onto Wikipedia. The admins are using common.js to override the changes and restore the previous behavior for anonymous visitors. So WMF staff have superprotected the pages to keep even local admins from editing them.

A subject is "notable" if it is the subject of substantial coverage in three unaffiliated reliable sources. If a subject is not notable, then it's not possible to make any verifiable claims about the subject.

At $36 per article, which I've seen on several sites, I don't think a lot of people will bite.

People also like to spread hoaxes, whether knowingly or unknowingly. That's why I specifically mentioned reliable sources, those "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Should have said Monsanto v. Schmeiser.

Yet you're posting this on Slashdot, which continues to operate from the .org TLD after having been sold to Andover, VA Linux, and Dice.

Ad blockers that allow the ad to render and then cover it up exist, but they eliminate the bandwidth and CPU time savings of a normal ad blocker. Like normal ad display, a cover-up ad blocker slows down rendering, drains your device's battery (as its CPU has to come out of sleep mode more often), and runs up a higher data bill with your ISP compared to a normal ad blocker. And as I mentioned above, a cover-up ad blocker fails with interactive advertisements.