Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion

"WP:INC" redirects here. For inclusion guidelines for organizations, see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). For the article incubator, see Wikipedia:Article Incubator.

Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

"I get frustrated by people using the Google 'test' as authoritative; if the web already knew it all there would be less need for Wikipedia!" — Pcb21.

Wikiproject Inclusion is dedicated to promoting inclusion on Wikipedia. It is the project page for the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. Please join us.

Goals

• To continuously improve Wikipedia and make it the most comprehensive source of reliable encyclopedic information available on the planet.
• Support Wikipedia's premise to be comprised of the sum of all human knowledge, freely-accesible to all humans.

How to help

Alert the WP:Article Rescue Squadron regarding any article at AfD worth saving

There are several ways to help:

1. Notify your comrades on the talk page when interesting discussions, rescues, or deletions are occurring.
2. Read to understand Inclusionism and Deletionism and how they interplay on Wikipedia.
3. Declare your opinions on your user page using the templates below.
4. Argue for Inclusion at relevant Village pump discussions.
5. Join the Article Rescue Squadron and improve its articles tagged for rescue.
6. 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:
   1. 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.
   2. Wikiproject Deletion sorting manually places AfDs into a plethora of categories; help them categorize or monitor one of the categories they create.

Resources

• WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM – 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 of articles.

Templates

Text	Description	Product
{{User inc}}	Userbox	This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.
{{User incl}}	Userbox	incl This user is an inclusionist.
{{Inclusionist}}	Banner	This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians 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.

Pledge

We the undersigned have formed this local WikiProject —based on the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians —to better organize action to support the principle article and material inclusion and to counter exclusion and deletion.

• 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.

Participants

• ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 8 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)
• Kurt Weber
• Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC) In protest of out of process deletion.
• Striver 15:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Kappa 15:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• User:CyclePat --Pat 04:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (do check my other categories)
• User:Rogue 9 Wikipedia is not paper. People need to figure this out.
• Simetrical
• Ganeshk
• User:Ephilei yay
• Ste|vertigo 16:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC) - Stubbed this project, glad to see it alive.
• Agne27 01:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC) - a worthwhile contribution to improve Wikipedia
• Bunty.Gill 17:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC) - There is always a right piece of information. It only needs to be found.
• Badbilltucker 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC) - Good idea I am happy to support.
• Stalin.P҉G 20:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Charles Douglas 08:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC) - I'm finding out rather quickly how intolerant of the truth some people can be.
• Lerner Salva veritate!
• Smeelgova 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC). I second the view of User:Charles Douglas above.
• Abeg92 16:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC). Absolutely.
• Split Infinity
• Kevin Murray
• Zadernet 05:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Scepia
• Snowolf^(talk) on 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Butnotthehippo 03:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• DGG 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC) - (also a member of WikiProject Deletion, & consider the 2 compatible)
• Wl219 08:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Dfrg.msc 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Edits = Efforts. Effort should never be wasted.
• Thanos6 01:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Everything is notable.
• Devin Murphy 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• T L Miles 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• JDG 07:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC) - Wikipedia's highest calling is to be a Compendium of Everything. High time to resist those who resist this.
• The Watchtower (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Dendodge: I'm all for it! Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge). (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 20:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Guitardude3600 i need help keeping my articles up
• — Ewald ^{(talk|email|contrib)} 20:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• DCmacnut<> 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC) I consider myself an inclusionist, especially for Wikipedia's in other languages.
• Turnsteam (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC) me too :)
• Lova Falk (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC) improve and expand instead of delete!
• xela20 13:10, 17 September 2008, Never underestimate the power of mankind to create, and its power to destroy. I'm happy to help.
• Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC) - Wikipedia has unlimited space; we should start using more of it. Everything is notable to someone.
• Mojo-chan (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Deletion should be the last resort on Wikipedia, not the first
• DiverScout DiverScout (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC) - Why do some editors act as if they're hosting Wikipedia on their own PC? Deletion is the recourse of those who know not how to research.
• 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...)
• 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.
• Inclusionist (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Flaviusvulso (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Twfowler
• User:Kasaalan
• 98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC). Anyone skeptical of the contributions because I'm an IP can see here for my efforts.
• Fleerz I support this 100%! If we can out-collaborate the deletionists, our philosophy will win out. Fleerz (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• Draeco (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:23, 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.
• 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 :).
• Oneiros (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Tom Danson (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC) CONSERVATA VERITATE! WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PAPER!
• ForgottenHistory (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Guy Macon Wikipedia in not paper, and notability is too often a codeword for knowing how to get the mass media to pay attention to something.
• 盛世 (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• J 1982 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Do you miss the old days back in 1994 when only the paper encyclopedia was around? If you were even born back then.
• Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Doh5678 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 21:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Expect for articles that are vandalizing Wikipedia, CONSERVATA VERITATE!
• – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Jeff Ogden (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
• 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)

Arguments against article deletion

• Deletionism goes against the premise of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, The founder of Wikipedia.
• Notability of articles is sometimes very subjective. For some, the US presidential candidate John Anderson might be a noted person; others who don't live in the United States might feel that the Scottish scientist John Anderson is more prominent.
• It can be discouraging when articles created by first-time contributors and newer users are deleted without (in their opinion) a good reason. In their view, at least, the subject matter is noteworthy.
• Instead of deleting articles altogether, they can be merged with other articles (see Mergism).
• Article additions and expansions, and allowing time for them to occur, is highly superior to simply deleting articles.
• It's easy to criticize and delete, whereas it's much more difficult to do research and create content.
• Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of notability can reduce the total information of Wikipedia.
• It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia for information and inside find that the relevant article existed at one point but has been deleted. This discourages both Wikipedia readership and authorship.
• Deleting an article on the basis of notability both reduces Wikipedia to the level of traditional encyclopedias (which won't cover topics that Wikipedia will for various reasons, including notability), but also doesn't provide the oversight that a traditional encyclopedia has to justify it trimming articles. Part of the reason people use Wikipedia is that it is a vibrant source of obscure knowledge, especially about obscure topics that aren't covered in a more traditional encyclopedia. Other methods of ensuring quality, such as labeling a page "In Need of Editing and Sources", are more than enough to correct problems.
• The Wikipedia search engine was updated and improved in 2010, in which "Search suggestions are now improved to get you to the page you are looking for more quickly," as reported on the Wikimedia blog on May 13, 2010. (link: "A new look for Wikipedia".) This serves to nullify the deletionist argument that "too many unnoteworthy or obscure articles impede finding the relevant stuff..." in Wikipedia searches.
• Search, categorization, and other technical measures for organization can diminish the difficulty in finding information even when there are many articles about insignificant subjects.
• Deletionists may subjectively pick-and-choose from a long and diverse list of Wikipedia notability and other guidelines as a rationale for the blanket deletion of an article. When one chosen standard is disproven, another rule is searched for and then stated as a rationale for deletion.
• Deletionists may use absolutist rationales and stances to justify article deletion. A notable example in Articles for deletion logs is arguing that absolutely no reliable sources exist to establish notability for and/or verify an article, while utilizing only one brief search for news and other sources, such as on Google or Google news, to qualify the statement. Sometimes it takes only seconds to disqualify such statements by utilizing web searches in other mediums, particularly those that are empirical, research-based, and lack a profit motive.

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

— Jimmy Wales, The founder of Wikipedia