The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
DISCLAIMER: I tend to self-identify on the side of deletionism when it comes to abandoned articles, though I'm not WP:BOLD enough to look for poorly written or short articles. I would rather be non-intrusive anyway.
Deletionists are usually evil people who seek to destroy anything they don't personally like, using any excuse they can come up with. They don't care how many people worked on the articles they try to destroy, but usually do whine when anyone criticizes them for being such total jerks about it. Inclusionists on the other hand have sense to know that if there is nothing gained by destroying an article, then there is no legitimate reason to do so. If it doesn't violate any specific rules- it not spam, scam, vanity, or an attack page- then there is no reason to bother it at all. If you weren't interested in the article's subject, then you wouldn't be likely to ever find your way there unless you went looking for something to complain about. DreamFocus 18:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I'm evil... I also don't think I've ever had a problem with the articles I thought should be deleted; I've seen some short and out-of-date articles here, and wondered why they were afforded stub-protection, for example. As for how many people worked on the article, I think most people would agree when I say that doesn't reflect it's worth- either to those people or others.
Your talk page (I hope you don't mind that I popped by) makes a few references to "circle-jerking" and "hardcore shut-in nerds," so I think there are whiners on both sides of the fence.
I can see many legitimate reasons to remove an article, not the least of which is when maintenance tags sit on an article for literally five years without being addressed. Though this in itself doesn't seem to be a direct violation of Wikipedia's rules, it seems to put a bad image on the site as a whole; big colorful marks on pages essentially marking them as "under construction," a no-no in any web design school of thought. Lack of interest in a subject may be a very good reason to delete an article, as lack of interest can mean anything from lack of maintenance to lack of notability.
To be honest, I disagree with your reasoning and especially with the narrative at the end of those reasons.
Deletionism (and removing articles that one feels don't belong in an encyclopedia) doesn't seem to correlate with "high society" or a refusal to think for oneself. Following policy doesn't either.
Reliable sources often includes blogs and the notability equation often includes popularity among "common folk."
I don't even understand where the last bullet in your list comes from. That's not accurate, I understand it, I simply completely disbelieve that attitude is held by a majority of ANYthings- deletionists or Wikipedians.
As for your narrative, without a parking ticket, someone may leave their broken down car on the curb/in their garage/on their farm rather than dealing with it. You are correct in saying policies have purpose, and the letter is useless without the spirit of those policies. This does not mean every policy is trumped by what you think of as common sense. You may (and I suspect are) missing the bigger picture- something you accuse hard-charging deletionists of doing.
I'm just going to comment that it seems that this section quickly meandered away from improving the article and into the realm of Wikipedia meta-thought. I would encourage you two to take up this conversation on a user talk page of your mutual agreement. This talk page should be for discussing the inclusion of certain information about deletionism and inclusionism on Wikipedia, and not about opinions which may or may not be widely held. --Izno (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. wsoder (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice to see that the Inclusionists are finally fighting back. To coin a phrase, if the Deletionists nominated Hell for deletion, I would make a favourable reference to the Devil on AfD. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This article refers almost entirely to the English Wikipedia. In the short paragraph about the other wikipedias they are even called "Other" (other in respect of what?)... --Lucas (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Other Wikipedias have different standards. I don't know if any of them have the bit we have here where you must have at least two reliable sources covering something to prove its worthy of a Wikipedia article. I know the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't require that, they able to use common sense instead, since all the fish they eat has Omega 3 in it and makes them smarter than us. DreamFocus 09:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Well in other large Wikipedias there tend to similar issues, so i can't really speak all of them, I can know for sure that in German WP there was (and latently still is) a similar bitterly fought inclusion versus exclusion battle. I.e. though the article currently lacks a global perspective on the issue, there is nevertheless one that can and should be added over time.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not MovedMike Cline (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As with Notability in the English Wikipedia, this article talks just about the English Wikipedia (see the paragraph above). The title "Deletionism and inclusionism in the English Wikipedia" would be more appropriate. --Lucas (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Though the current content primarily deals with English WP this is by no means a phenomenon restricted to it, similar disputes exist in other WPs as well. In particular for the German Wikipedia, such information can and should be integrated into this article over time (as far as external reporting/sources exist).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
yes, but we always talk about the articles as they are, not as they "could be if...". ;) This article talks only about en.wiki, with just a couple of words about the so called "other versions". --Lucas (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, we usually do not change article names according to their developing content. Instead we usually begin with a general term/notion and expand it over time if needed. That's also what various templates for article improvement and the article's talk page is for. Article extensions and overhauls often move rather slowly in WP, that comes with the nature of the project.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree but understand your point of view :). --Lucas (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose As this article is within the English Wikipedia, the general context is implicit and does not need stating. If there are similar issues in other languages, then that is relevant content and should not be excluded by the title being made too specific. Warden (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose unnecessary. There have been issues in German wikipedia so is a global wiki-phenomenon....Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose This is a global problem of Wikipedia.--Oneiros (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... this seems a bit weird to me: "this is a global problem", "there are similar issues in other wikis", should we keep the same problem here? It's not so pragmatic. :) --Lucas (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose No need for a longer pointless name. DreamFocus 00:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Sub-editors. Bastards. What about all that copy of his they'd cut? Fifteen years of research he'd filed from one planet alone and they'd cut it to two words. "Mostly harmless." The finger to them as well. -- Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless, Chapter 12 (1992). Wnt (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
As it stands, this article seems to be only about deletionism vs. inclusionism, that is about whether an entire article has a right to live or not. It should be noted at least towards the end or the See also section that inclusionists are/can be also opposed to exclusionists, which is a dispute not about whole articles but about the extent of notability and relevancy within an article as long as the information has to do with that article's subject. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)