Tackle the front lines of article deletion at
AfD. You can monitor
the entire current feed or concentrate on deletion debates in a particular area:
Category:AfD debates uses the category function built into the AfD template. It has less specific categories but should theoretically pull from all deletion debates.
Try to fix problems – The Wikipedia policy of trying to correct problems in articles through editing improvements, expansion and adding reliable sources is often more appropriate than a complete deletion or merging of articles.
The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth".
This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.
The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth".
This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.
We hold the view that the process of deletion carries a "systemic bias" or "process bias" by which the process itself becomes a haven for those who wish to use it —emphasizing deletion rather than offering reasonable alternatives for keeping or redirection. (Alternate project title:
Countering Process Bias. See also
Countering Systemic Bias)
We campaign for the proper use of the
Wikipedia:Cleanup process as it was instituted as a mainstream buffer before
deletion is used.
We seek to institute a review process for Wikipedia articles and templates, which will act in a similar way as Cleanup does for main articles.
We also seek to begin a consolidation of the deletion processes, whereby these can be collectively tracked and responded to.
Cyclopia -
talk19:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC) - WP is not paper, and notability is almost always a POV concept. Oh, and "encyclopedic" is the most abused word ever. Sometimes deletion is meaningful, but much more often not. I patrol AfDs (2-3 a day usually), with an eye on BLPs which are usually slashed by overzealous application of BLP policies.reply
Sternenmeer (
talk)
01:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC) ‒ WP is really not Paper. In fact, the Paper Age is ending before our very eyes. The deletionists overzealously stick too much to old pre-digital principles dictated by former scarcety of information that no longer exists anymore, not outside our minds anyway ... Enraged by the current ridiculous deletionism storm in the German Wikipedia (see fefe & netzpolitik) I pledge to improve or flag content rather than delete it. I'll also probably like never propose an article's deletion, cause if it really validly should be deleted, someone else will propose it anyway while I'm off adding valuable content somewhere else :D :D :D. I pledge to enrich and grow WP best I can :).reply
User:PseudoSkull - I believe highly in the philosophy of inclusionism. Moderation between deletionism and inclusionism would sound like a good idea to me, except even within this it takes away from the very primary purposes of Wikipedia. Include as much as possible, and delete as little as possible. Delete only the unverifiable/untrue and the nonsense.
PseudoSkull (
talk)
23:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)reply
This is a list of participants who haven't edited Wikipedia for a year. If you find your name on this list, feel free to move it back to the list of active participants when you return to editing.
GLPeterson (
talk)
02:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC) I agree. Wikipedia is not paper. Edits = Efforts; effort should never be wasted. Improve and expand instead of delete! Everything is notable to someone. The only standard for notability should be verifiability.reply
Madeleined2 (
talk)
22:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Who says what's notable and what's not? For example, lots of Americans would consider
Tintin non-notable, and one guy tried to stop an article from being created even though its subject had won lots of awards.reply
Mark Chung (
talk)
03:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Supporting a deletionist to delete an incomplete article = supporting someone to kill a sick baby. If you say "What use is this new article?" I ask "Of what use is a new-born baby? Please ask a deletionist to kill a sick baby before deleting articles. If all Wikipedians are deletionists, Wikipedia won't exist. It will be deleted. Ironically, they didn't delete their own page. Funny.reply
Nabeth. I am clearly an inclusionist (which does not mean I accept hasty contribution, but rather that that I associate notable content with useful content, even when this content is not very important, and like to give the space for concept to develop / incubate). --
Nabeth (
talk)
13:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)reply
--
Photomaltese (
talk)
22:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC) I am a inclusioniste because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, knowledge can be shared, they do not have to go through an academic and vertical system.reply
RockManQ(talk)03:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I used to be a deletionist, then I actually started to create and write articles. I saw how much hard work people put in to article writing. Call me a reformed deletionist (Granted I still have some deletionist tendencies and will still delete hoaxs, vanity pieces,
not violations, etc...)reply
SF007. If "crap" is popular and gets media attention, it is usually kept, on the other hand, valuable coverage of important projects or organizations gets deleted simply due to a narrow interpretation of "notability", regardless of the value of the subject --
SF007 (
talk)
22:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)reply
UBI-et-ORBI (
talk)
23:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC) I am firmly in support of the application of editorial tools (especially collegial community discussion), solid work towards article improvement, and the adaptation of policy to reflect these precepts. Deletion should always be the absolute last course of action, when overwhelming consensus deems an Article either frivolous or irredeemable.reply
xela20 13:10, 17 September 2008, Never underestimate the power of mankind to create, and its power to destroy. I'm happy to help.
Yiba (
talk)
03:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC): Judgement on notability cannot be made without establishing a point of view.
NPOV is a core policy that needs preservation of minor view points to ensure neutrality.reply
Tackle the front lines of article deletion at
AfD. You can monitor
the entire current feed or concentrate on deletion debates in a particular area:
Category:AfD debates uses the category function built into the AfD template. It has less specific categories but should theoretically pull from all deletion debates.
Try to fix problems – The Wikipedia policy of trying to correct problems in articles through editing improvements, expansion and adding reliable sources is often more appropriate than a complete deletion or merging of articles.
The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth".
This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.
The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth".
This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.
We hold the view that the process of deletion carries a "systemic bias" or "process bias" by which the process itself becomes a haven for those who wish to use it —emphasizing deletion rather than offering reasonable alternatives for keeping or redirection. (Alternate project title:
Countering Process Bias. See also
Countering Systemic Bias)
We campaign for the proper use of the
Wikipedia:Cleanup process as it was instituted as a mainstream buffer before
deletion is used.
We seek to institute a review process for Wikipedia articles and templates, which will act in a similar way as Cleanup does for main articles.
We also seek to begin a consolidation of the deletion processes, whereby these can be collectively tracked and responded to.
Cyclopia -
talk19:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC) - WP is not paper, and notability is almost always a POV concept. Oh, and "encyclopedic" is the most abused word ever. Sometimes deletion is meaningful, but much more often not. I patrol AfDs (2-3 a day usually), with an eye on BLPs which are usually slashed by overzealous application of BLP policies.reply
Sternenmeer (
talk)
01:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC) ‒ WP is really not Paper. In fact, the Paper Age is ending before our very eyes. The deletionists overzealously stick too much to old pre-digital principles dictated by former scarcety of information that no longer exists anymore, not outside our minds anyway ... Enraged by the current ridiculous deletionism storm in the German Wikipedia (see fefe & netzpolitik) I pledge to improve or flag content rather than delete it. I'll also probably like never propose an article's deletion, cause if it really validly should be deleted, someone else will propose it anyway while I'm off adding valuable content somewhere else :D :D :D. I pledge to enrich and grow WP best I can :).reply
User:PseudoSkull - I believe highly in the philosophy of inclusionism. Moderation between deletionism and inclusionism would sound like a good idea to me, except even within this it takes away from the very primary purposes of Wikipedia. Include as much as possible, and delete as little as possible. Delete only the unverifiable/untrue and the nonsense.
PseudoSkull (
talk)
23:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)reply
This is a list of participants who haven't edited Wikipedia for a year. If you find your name on this list, feel free to move it back to the list of active participants when you return to editing.
GLPeterson (
talk)
02:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC) I agree. Wikipedia is not paper. Edits = Efforts; effort should never be wasted. Improve and expand instead of delete! Everything is notable to someone. The only standard for notability should be verifiability.reply
Madeleined2 (
talk)
22:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Who says what's notable and what's not? For example, lots of Americans would consider
Tintin non-notable, and one guy tried to stop an article from being created even though its subject had won lots of awards.reply
Mark Chung (
talk)
03:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Supporting a deletionist to delete an incomplete article = supporting someone to kill a sick baby. If you say "What use is this new article?" I ask "Of what use is a new-born baby? Please ask a deletionist to kill a sick baby before deleting articles. If all Wikipedians are deletionists, Wikipedia won't exist. It will be deleted. Ironically, they didn't delete their own page. Funny.reply
Nabeth. I am clearly an inclusionist (which does not mean I accept hasty contribution, but rather that that I associate notable content with useful content, even when this content is not very important, and like to give the space for concept to develop / incubate). --
Nabeth (
talk)
13:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)reply
--
Photomaltese (
talk)
22:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC) I am a inclusioniste because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, knowledge can be shared, they do not have to go through an academic and vertical system.reply
RockManQ(talk)03:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I used to be a deletionist, then I actually started to create and write articles. I saw how much hard work people put in to article writing. Call me a reformed deletionist (Granted I still have some deletionist tendencies and will still delete hoaxs, vanity pieces,
not violations, etc...)reply
SF007. If "crap" is popular and gets media attention, it is usually kept, on the other hand, valuable coverage of important projects or organizations gets deleted simply due to a narrow interpretation of "notability", regardless of the value of the subject --
SF007 (
talk)
22:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)reply
UBI-et-ORBI (
talk)
23:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC) I am firmly in support of the application of editorial tools (especially collegial community discussion), solid work towards article improvement, and the adaptation of policy to reflect these precepts. Deletion should always be the absolute last course of action, when overwhelming consensus deems an Article either frivolous or irredeemable.reply
xela20 13:10, 17 September 2008, Never underestimate the power of mankind to create, and its power to destroy. I'm happy to help.
Yiba (
talk)
03:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC): Judgement on notability cannot be made without establishing a point of view.
NPOV is a core policy that needs preservation of minor view points to ensure neutrality.reply