Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia

Inclusionist and deletionism are opposing philosophies in Wikipedia regarding the criteria for existence of articles. Deletionists generally argue for the deletion of articles that are unreferenced or referenced only by Web-based sources and blogs, that appear to fail the community standards of notability, that exclusively contain trivia or popular culture references, or any other types of articles deemed unencyclopedic. Inclusionists generally err on the side of more content, a higher tolerance of "stub" articles and newer members who may not yet be familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and an acceptance of notable blogs and other Web-based sources. Inclusionists may argue that the interest of a few is a sufficient condition for the existence of an article, as such articles are harmless and there is no restriction on space in Wikipedia.

The debates take place on a page called "articles for deletion," with an administrator judging the consensus of each debate to either delete or include the article. If the administrator's decision is refuted, then the discussion can be taken to "deletion review", where inclusionists and deletionists continue the debate at a different level. In controversial cases, the debates can spread to other websites.

Cases covered by the media

Specific cases of disputes between deletionists and inclusionists have attracted media coverage.

The article on Mzoli's Meats was nominated for deletion after being created by Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales.

In February 2007, an editor who had previously aligned himself with deletionism before coming to adhere to what he calls "significantism", an emphasis on Wikipedia's sense of notability over importance, nominated the article on Terry Shannon for deletion for a lack of sources and therefore notability, a decision ridiculed by The Inquirer. The proposal was overturned by overwhelming opposition.

The deletion of the biography of television anchor Susan Peters and the article for the Pownce website also sparked controversy.

Subjects of deleted articles

In July 2006, The Inquirer was offended by claims made by certain Wikipedia editors that it conspired with Everywhere Girl to create her phenomenon. They observed an apparent campaign to remove all references to Everywhere Girl on Wikipedia. Later, they found it contrary to common sense that what became included on Wikipedia was their series of reports on the deletions of the Wikipedia article.

In December 2006, writer and composer Matthew Dallman found that Wikipedia's biography of him was under debate, and became drawn to the vote counts. He was deciding to not participate on his own behalf due to Wikipedia's apparent dislike of self-promotion, saying that "It's like I'm on trial and I can't testify," though he would not be able to resist the urge.

Andrew Klein was disappointed that the article on his webcomic Cake Pony was deleted, despite his claims that the "article contains valuable and factual information about a popular internet meme." He conceded that "it's their site and you've got to play by their rules."

Slate.com and Wall Street Journal journalist Timothy Noah documented his "career as an encyclopedia entry," and questioned the need for rules on notability in addition to rules on verifiability.

Criticism

Critics of the inclusionism–deletionism distinction note the large amount of wasted effort that goes into deletion debates. Being called an inclusionist or deletionist could sidetrack the issue from the actual debate, which may contribute to community disintegration, restriction of information, or a decrease in the rate of article creation that suggests a decrease in passion and motivation amongst editors.

Scholarly Research

Scholarly studies of the social dynamics within Wikipedia have documented that the Inclusionist and Deletionist factions are the two most prominent associations within Wikipedia and the impact of these organizations on information quality.

Alternatives

In November 2004, editor Reene Sylverwind created the Association of Mergist Wikipedians to promote a middle ground between the two factions, as not all deletion debates result in keeping or deleting the article entirely. A merge from one article to another is executed by moving the relevant content from the former to the latter, and redirecting the former to the latter. This is a sort of compromise since the content still exists for the inclusionist, while the original article no longer exists by itself for the deletionist arguing against its unencyclopedic nature.