Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles - Wikipedia is not as complete as you appear to suggest. Pcb21| Pete 12:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Re: your "critical mass" argument, it seems to entail that once historical articles are completed, it is time to close the book on new entries. But one of Wikipedia's strengths is being able to rapidly disseminate new information; notable events occur, more people are becoming famous, and terms and concepts are being invented to describe new noteworthy ideas -- all of which warrant inclusion. This doesn't really break your criteria for speedy deletion argument... just something to keep in mind. -- John Hubbard 12:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Re: you say at the bottom that you endorse the view of (arch-inclusionist) The Cunctator. This is completely at odds with the deletionist view point you espouse earlier on. Pcb21| Pete 13:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
There's no way historical articles are anywhere near complete. Just have a look at something like List of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad precursors. -- SPUI ( talk) 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Howdy! I found this after clicking on your deletionism definition in the Snowspinner RFC. I think you've made some great points, and would like to add the suggestion that amending the WP:CSD to give more leeway is the proper path. The main reason I endorse this is that there is already a remedy in place for a theoretical 'speedy delete abuse' situation, and that process is being demonstrated in the form of the aformentioned RfC. As admins are held to a standard that can be enforced, the checks and balances are already there. Thanks for the analysis, I believe I may identify myself as a deletionist as well following the spirit of your post. - Regards, CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 22:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles - Wikipedia is not as complete as you appear to suggest. Pcb21| Pete 12:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Re: your "critical mass" argument, it seems to entail that once historical articles are completed, it is time to close the book on new entries. But one of Wikipedia's strengths is being able to rapidly disseminate new information; notable events occur, more people are becoming famous, and terms and concepts are being invented to describe new noteworthy ideas -- all of which warrant inclusion. This doesn't really break your criteria for speedy deletion argument... just something to keep in mind. -- John Hubbard 12:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Re: you say at the bottom that you endorse the view of (arch-inclusionist) The Cunctator. This is completely at odds with the deletionist view point you espouse earlier on. Pcb21| Pete 13:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
There's no way historical articles are anywhere near complete. Just have a look at something like List of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad precursors. -- SPUI ( talk) 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Howdy! I found this after clicking on your deletionism definition in the Snowspinner RFC. I think you've made some great points, and would like to add the suggestion that amending the WP:CSD to give more leeway is the proper path. The main reason I endorse this is that there is already a remedy in place for a theoretical 'speedy delete abuse' situation, and that process is being demonstrated in the form of the aformentioned RfC. As admins are held to a standard that can be enforced, the checks and balances are already there. Thanks for the analysis, I believe I may identify myself as a deletionist as well following the spirit of your post. - Regards, CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 22:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)