Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia

COI/SYN

As requested, I {{COI}}-tagged the article because one of the primary contributors is self-labeled inclusionist. Since {{Synthesis}} is subjective, we'll let the AfD sort that out, but since there is only one scholarly article on the subject (waaaaay down at the bottom, and the article only mentions it as part of the greater whole), this is very much a synthesis of ideas per WP:OR, since the rest of the media coverage is over outrage'n'spectacle surrounding deletion of specific articles— not deletionism/inclusionism itself. --slakr^\ talk / 01:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

While it's reasonable to suspect that Tarinth's inclusionist bias would affect the article, it's clear that the criticism section is only about criticism of the distinction itself, not either side. Each side's arguments are presented symmetrically, which is a pretty hard way to support a point. There should be a stronger basis for COI tagging.

Some sources describe specific deletions; others use such examples to discuss the positions broadly. –Pomte 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

While my own stance on inclusion versus deletionism is transparent, this isn't a "position piece" that takes any side on the subject--it merely deals with the fact that such a controversy exists (for comparison, consider that most contributors to Christianity are Christians or that Evolution has substantial contributions by biologists; labelling those articles as COI would be absurd). Furthermore, a COI tag tends to prejudice readers negatively, which is particularly sensitive during an AfD. Considering the article has been extensively edited and improved since its original creation, I've removed the COI tag. (I'll also note that I located a source that cast the controversy as a potential positive, and there's certainly ample opportunity for editors to locate more such content in the future, should they exist). If you believe there's any bias within the article--and I'll readily admit that it's possible I could have a "blinder" in some respect--then please feel free to improve the article as you see fit... but I don't believe there's any bias that necessitates a heavy-handed and prejudicial label being applied to the article as a whole. Tarinth (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that "only one scholarly article on the subject" is no longer true. –Pomte 17:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos

I've added a couple photo captions to the article, but it still needs a lead caption. Any suggestions? Tarinth (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

More relevant images would be screenshots of deletion debates, like how they are displayed in the research articles. –Pomte 17:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename

If kept, the article will need to be renamed. In the very least, 'Controversy' shouldn't be capitalized. But this phenomenon isn't really a controversy; it's a distinction between two factions that debate on controversial subjects, but that itself isn't controversial. The scope now is Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, or Inclusionism and deletionism in Wikipedia until we find sources for other wikis. –Pomte 22:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your naming suggestion seems fine to me, particularly since the scope of the article has expanded since it was originally written. I don't have a preference for either of your options (flip a coin). Whichever article doesn't become the main article, the other name should also be created and contain a redirect. Tarinth (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki "spirit"

I'm missing one major argument from the "criticism" section, namely that a page deletion is unlike any other action (creation, edit, reversion, etc.) in that it breaks the history, is not reversable or even reviewable because the page including meta-information is lost. IMHO that's a fairly major, non-POV argument that should be included, but I don't want to start an edit-war, so I'm asking here first what others think. --.Tom. (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the sources makes it sound like the thing is gone forever and people necessarily have to start from scratch, but it's not true as the edit history is not lost. Reversible by admins, reviewable at WP:DRV. –Pomte 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Straying from the topic slightly, that's exactly why I think the use of the word 'delete' in Wikipedia is misleading.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, wow...

I only just discovered this article existed. Is it not the biggest ever violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references? Not to mention the fact that it essentially consists of a synthesis of already published material - more like a collection of trivia than an encyclopaedic article. I'm amazed and deeply disappointed that this article somehow passed AFD, and to me it seems to cross a very dangerous line, taking us down the road towards ever-increasing focus on Wikipedia itself in Wikipedia articles, and the gradual obliteration of the distinction between article-space and Wikipedia-space. This belongs in the latter, not the former.

...But then, I am a deletionist myself. I guess I would think that, wouldn't I? Terraxos (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, here's the kind of thing we risk by allowing articles like this to exist: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephant (wikipedia article). Judging from this precedent, it's only a matter of time before someone creates Mzoli's Meats (Wikipedia article); after all, the Wikipedia article is at least as notable as the restaurant itself, if not more so. The same reasoning could be used for Jordanhill Railway Station (Wikipedia article). Terraxos (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you're reading this, please don't actually create these articles! :) Terraxos (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• You may want to read the AfD on this article, which closed as Keep. All of the issues you raise, especially WP:ASR and WP:SYNTH, were considered and rejected. Elephant (wikipedia article) was moved to userspace because there was not an adequate demonstration that the subject of the Elephant article being notable. The subject of Deletionism and Inclusionism in Wikipedia is a subject that has been covered by dozens of reliable and verifiable sources in national and international media. Given that this subject has been pretty clearly settled, it's disappointing that we find it so difficult to accept the settled consensus on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Whether you're serious or not, that's hilarious. ^_^ Kasreyn (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This article clearly violates WP:SELF. The philosophies of a small community of people working on a not-for-profit project, online or off, would not be expected to exist in an encyclopedia one finds at a book store. This is objectively evidenced by the fact that Wikipedia has no such articles on community philosophies of other similarly sized projects. This kind of self-consciousness makes Wikipedia look unprofessional. Trickrick1985 (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Trick, I don't know about you, but I have never gone to a bookstore and found a 2 million page encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is much more than just an encyclopedia, journalists consistently praise all of the off beat and wonderful things that they can find on wikipedia, I have never seen a journalist scorn wikipedia for some of its off beat topics, only the "bully" deletionist here on wikipedia. Don't lose any sleep over this articles existence, please focus on creating your first article, not focusing on deleting other editors contributions.

Even if this article continues to exist, people can still find all of the wikipedia articles which have less errors than Britanica. Having this article in no way changes those articles. travb (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely is not. "Self-reference" does not mean "there can be no articles about Wikipedia." It simply means that articles on Wikipedia, whether or not they are about Wikipedia, should not be written in a manner that they are aware that they are on Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 17:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Destruction of intellectual property

Administrators like nothing better than waiting around until an article has cooled off and nobody is looking, then deleting many hours x people x bytes worth of work for not meeting criteria 57 paragraph 32 of fine print rule 3.

Only years later there is the slight chance the destruction is discovered, when somebody just happens to create an article of the exact same name and sees the note left behind and goes further and wants to see the carcass. Jidanni (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Shorting Wikipedia's potential

This article provides a great link to the subject, about which I first read in the Wall Street Journal.

My $0.02 on the subject: If we could just limit or end deletionism, Wikipedia could be a great source of first reference for everything. (Granted, it's relative anonymity ensures that it cannot offer the "last word" on anything.)

I'm willing to accept that any work contributed may be revised even viciously, but new articles need to be seeded and given a chance to grow. Allowing them to be deleted just discourages me from contributing effort or funds. Johnlogic (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales himself is an inclusionist. Thank God for that. I don't think we would have over 250,000 pages if he was a deletionist.

His most famous quote: "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." travb (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Add "surgeon general's notice" to deletionists' favorite templates

The deletionists' favorite templates should have a tiny legal notice added to them linking to Inclusionist ombudsman groups. Sort of "you have the right to a lawyer". Else all one sees are the prison guards as one's article is dragged off to the gas chamber. Jidanni (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of adding a link to Inclusionist ombudsman groups, but there would be a lot of backlash. Instead, I message editors whose article has recently been put up for WP:articles for deletion about what they can do about it, including contacting the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. For example:User_talk:81.76.127.67

The "Inclusionist ombudsman groups" aren't they all inactive?

You maybe interested in User:Gekritzl/Deletion gestapo who has the same colorful expressions. travb (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on my user page. I have now submitted Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Commons. Jidanni (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Circularity

At some point someone's going to come around and say that this article is a cause of newspeople writing stuff about deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, which strengthens the argument for the inclusion of this article. Well, that's a good thing, right? –Pomte 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletionism and inclusionism in the news

The battle for Wikipedia's soul

If there's more news about this subject, you might want to add another paragraph in the article itself.--82.93.172.114 (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fisherman or Traffic Cop

Erin McKean argued very nicely why she prefers to be a fisherman (inclusionist) and not a traffic cop (deletionist) in the dictionary business. It's not inclusionism/deletionism per se, but I think the discussion over which words to include and which words to omit from a dictionary parallels this discussion, or at least concerns it. See her exuberant talk here: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/161 89.138.134.254 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why elaboration?

I'm not going to edit this page without a safety helmet and a baseball bat, but I have to ask: Why is Wikipedia elaborating on what Wikipedia is in the first paragraph? I think we can safely assume that almost anyone who's reading this article can guess what Wikipedia is, or at the very least they can click the self-referencing link to find out. The site name, the logo in the corner, the multiple links in the sidebar...it's pretty hard to miss. GrifterMage (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles are generally written with independent context as appropriate, so the subject can be learned without much clicking away from the actual article. Someone could be reading this article elsewhere. –Pomte 18:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How to read deleted articles

a. What hints, tips and pointers are there for reading deleted articles?...
b. How can deleted articles be archived for interested researchers?...
--the zak 1 April 2008

Only admins can read deleted articles, but you can ask them to provide a copy for you. –Pomte 12:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How do they read deleted articles?...
--the zak

There's a description at Wikipedia:New admin school/Viewing deleted pages. –Pomte 05:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is to become an admin. Might take a bit of work, though. Richard001 (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A: Editors have the following options:

1. Ask the administrator who deleted the article for the article to be "userfied". This means a special page is created with your name and the deleted articles name as the title.
2. Request an administrator to e-mail the article to you.
3. Dispute the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Instructions. Hope this helps. travb (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

'Notable inclusionists' section

I see this has been tagged with a 'POV' template. I don't know what the concern of the tagger was, but it occurred to me: is it POV to have a 'Notable inclusionists' section without having a 'notable deletionists' one as well? The problem being, of course, that there are no notable deletionists... at least, in contrast to the several commentators on Wikipedia who self-identify as inclusionists, I'm not aware of any public figure prepared to call themselves a deletionist. (Perhaps this is because 'deletionist' is more of a pejorative term; or perhaps it's because anyone notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia would tend to want such articles to be kept.) Does anyone think this is a problem, or is it fine the way it is? Terraxos (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely the concern. The section began as "Notable inclusionists and deletionists", but since I found no notable deletionists, I renamed it after the POV tagging. I think the article is neutral in this regard, but having the tag doesn't really damage it. –Pomte 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to inclusionist wikis?

At wp:OTRS we get a lot of angry emails from the likes of new garage bands and webcomic writers about verifiability and notability, and I was wondering if we can include some external links to this article (other than wikia which can cause even more death threats) of sites that aren't encyclopedias, like

• includipedia
• mywikibiz

A short list of the best such sites can then also be used when replying to the emails. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-13t15:59z

I think this is an excellent idea. It would help get the crummy stubs like Intrada off of Wikipedia and onto a site that would welcome and promote them. - Fawn Lake (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeandré, I approve of your idea of pointing people to Includipedia if they write articles that don't fit with Wikipedia's scope. (I'm the founder of Includipedia). However, I disagree with your characterization of Includipedia as not an encyclopedia. Includipedia is an inclusionist fork of Wikipedia. It is therefore as much as an encyclopedia as Wikipedia is, but with different (and larger) scope. -- Cabalamat (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this an article?

• Wikipedia
  • Wikipedia community (no article, just a redirect; apparently not notable and thus deleted]]
    • Some fairly trivial disagreement between certain editors of Wikipedia (has an article??)

Seriously, we delete Wikipedia community and allow an article on some trivial little subtopic of the Wikipedia community to stand? This is absurd. Surely you don't leave big hierarchical gaps like that. An article on the authorship and administration of Wikipedia would be nice, if it is notable enough. It was deleted. And yet we keep this? Richard001 (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted. It looks like it was merged; probably into Wikipedia. Might be a gap you want to fill in, or maybe it's covered sufficiently in the main WP article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a gap. There are dozens of things like this that an article on the Wikipedia community (or as I've suggested, the broader topic of authorship and administration of Wikipedia) could cover. Not having such an article is certainly an inconsistency that needs rectifying. That it was redirected and not deleted seems to me a matter of technicality. I'm not going to attempt to write such an article myself, but if we are to keep this I think we should certainly have one. Richard001 (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone will write it someday, and probably soon. The difference between redirection and deletion is big because the first is done by one user based on their own opinion and the second is based on a consensus seeking group decision. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely a notable subject, perhaps one of the most notable aspects of Wikipedia policy debates, not to mention one of the most divisive and intractable. Especially now that it has appeared in The Economist and other mainstream publications, it clearly belongs here. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There are probably a lot of other notable subjects regarding Wikipedian cyberculture. I'd love to see such articles written, especially if they are as well-sourced and referenced as this article. Tarinth (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Consumer Cellular

How do you read an article such as it is, before it got deleted?... for Consumer Cellular -- the zak (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to ask an admin to do it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You can see archived articles at sites like Deletionpedia and Internet Archive. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A: Editors have the following options:

1. Ask the administrator who deleted the article for the article to be "userfied". This means a special page is created with your name and the deleted articles name as the title.
2. Request an administrator to e-mail the article to you.
3. Dispute the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Instructions. Hope this helps. travb (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging and splitting often go together

I've been wondering about how to make more-specific split tags that suggest, not necessarily that an article is too long, but that it ought to be split with content of this sort going to this article and content of that sort going to that article. This is the mess I've wound up in by proposing a merge of Egg and Ovum, and by opposing a merge of Indian subcontinent and Indies. Both disputes have left me wanting to make the WP:split page more detailed (and this would require some complementary edits to WP:merge as well) to give people something to refer to in these complicated merge+split disputes. Any advice in this matter (including a pointer to the most appropriate helpdesk) would be greatly appreciated. --arkuat (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a media officer

I am noted in this article as a Wikimedia Media Officer. I am no such thing! I am a Wikinewsie who, as an OTRS volunteer, has access to the press queue. The reporter pulled the title out of some dark orifice. --Brian McNeil /^talk 21:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Just want to say that it's appalling to see this article might be considered for some sort of award ... it's a clear WP:SYN violation, not to mention non-notable navel-gazing. It should have been deleted, not nominated for good article status. Just my two cents; I'm not the person who was asked to review it. csloat (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This article does not meet the Good Article criteria and will not be listed. While Wikipedia articles discussing the topic of Wikipedia itself can and have been considered for Good Article status in the past (see Essjay controversy, a current GA), they nonetheless must adhere to the same GA standards as any other article. This one falls quite far short of that bar.

First, the lead is too short and doesn't adequately summarize the article. Secondly, what's with the use of NINE citations on the very first sentence?!?! You think that's just a tad excessive?

The included sections of information are individually very short, with little content, and mostly bits and pieces of random facts pieced together from several sources. There are many individual paragraphs within sections that are single sentences, and sections themselves do not connect very well with each other. Overall, the article looks like an indiscriminate collection of information, probably just above being a trivia section.

The screenshot of a deletion review (Image:Deletion review.png) is very difficult to read, and doesn't really appear to bring anything useful to the article. The image of Simon Pulsifer is only connected to the text by a single sentence. How can you justify an image if you only refer to the incident by just one sentence?!?! The image of the Mzoli's incident does have some text in the article, and the incident is described, somewhat. But the image is very poor quality and could probably be tweaked in a photo editor.

There are lots of external links included throughout the article text, and these should only be found in the 'external links' section.

Reading the article again, I should reiterate the fact that this article appears to just be a random collection of isolated facts, not tied together very well, and I draw huge gaping question marks over the 'completeness' of this article. Therefore, it cannot meet the Good Article criteria at this time. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In what way is the article incomplete? Please indicate significant omissions so that they may be addressed. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Move

Shouldn't we move this page to the Wikipedia namespace? It is about the project.Cssiitcic (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not technically a self-reference to avoid, in that it attempts to present an outside view of a subject which only happens to concern the Wikipedia project directly. There are an abundance of good secondary sources backing it up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with thumper. Inclusionist (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I support the transclusion of this page into wikispace. Yes there are external sources, but this is still about Wikipedia. Eusebeus (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, this is an encyclopaedia article on a clearly notable topic. Wikipedia shouldn't get special treatment from Wikipedia. You best get your move finger ready for all the other pages in Category:Wikipedia. Skomorokh 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If it is to stay in main space, the tone of advocacy must be removed & it might help to find a somewhat different title. Personally, though I have often supported articles on notable Wikipedians and Wikipedia controversies when challenged, I think keeping this in article space is pushing the boundaries. DGG (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that a neutral and reliably sourced article of decent length cannot be written about the topic? Skomorokh 02:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What's lacking about the current title? Tone of advocacy for what? My contributions to this article were based on sources alone, not from my personal knowledge. I wrote minimal summaries rather than squeeze every detail from each source, which is probably why someone commented above that it sounds disconnected. I believe other editors have done the same. The content of this article represents what anyone would find if they did their own research on the topic. If the article were about some other site that is not Wikipedia, would it still "push boundaries"? –Pomte 05:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose If this were moved to project space then it would become open to all manner of opinionated POV pushing because our principles of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV don't seem to apply in project space. This would not be an improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Colonel Warden on this. Project pages are intended to be for guides, essays, and general policy information. I don't see how this article can possibly fit into any of those categories, as it covers a topic that has received substantial media coverage and meets every criteria for independent notability that I can think of. I don't see any NPOV issues as both sides are represented (if there happens to be more media coverage relating to deletion over inclusion, or vice versa, that's not our problem. I don't see any worth in moving this to project space, any more than I could see the Jimmy Wales article being so relocated. 23skidoo (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose If we were to take the self referencing rule to such an extreme, we'd be forced to delete the wikipedia article itself! This is absurd. This morning I had donating $100 to wikipedia on my todo list; now deletionists have me too disgusted. Lately, it seems that every time I try to find important info using wikipedia I just find that its already been deleted. At least now I know the nefarious plot responsible. Blaimjos (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above. travb (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this matter had been settled previously at Afd, but a passing llok at the article shows that this has been the subject of ample, in-depth reliable and verifiable coverage in the media worldwide, even if the article appears to be "about" Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - this subject gets raised regularly by people who don't understand the article's history, or are misinformed with repsect to whether Wikipedia can contain encyclopedic articles about Wikipedia (it can). The fact is that these subjects have been explored in detail before, and barring a significant shift in WP policy or ideals, there's no reason to re-open the conversation. Tarinth (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Starblind/DeletionWars

Excellent article on the history of deletion wars, a must read. travb (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any media articles supportive of deletionism?

Are there any media articles that are supportive of deletionists? Every media article I have read thus far is incredibly negative. travb (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean in the userspace? If you mean in the userspace, you should not ask the question on the talk page of the encyclopedic article Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. If you mean in the article namespace, of course not, that would be POV. If you mean in the media, that's all about interpretation - just like with the inclusionism-supportive articles. Now I have a humble request: most people have left this to personal essays or possibly even moved on (gasp!). And your unexplained subst-ing of templates is not appreciated, why do you keep doing that? Plrk (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am talking about the media. I refactored my comments by adding the word 'media' to more clearly convey my question. Thanks for pointing this out. I was looking for more balance in this article, since all the media quoted on this page, that I am aware of, is negative towards deletionism.

Calling an editors contributions to a talk page "spam" is rather offensive. Did you expect a positive reaction?

If you look at the edit history, I created the FAQ template, based on two users questions here. It is my first time using a FAQ template, and so it was trial and error. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Thanks. travb (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ is not about this article, but rather about a Wikipedia process. I've MfDed it as inappropriate. As for your contributions to this page, you're continuing to use it as a soapbox and you're being pretty transparent about it. Given your current SPA-style user name, this is not likely to result in being given the benefit of the doubt very often. I'd take the advice to refrain from posting comments which may be taken as off-topic to heart if I were you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not expect a positive reaction and that wasn't what I was looking for, either. As Chris Cunningham says, you clearly have an agenda and you are using this talk page to advance that agenda. Also, considering that I explained why I removed the FAQ template, why did you reinstate it? Even if the questions were on topic (which they were NOT), they were hardly "frequently asked". Plrk (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Plrk, I have responded on your talk page, please remove these personal attacks immediatly. I am considering doing it myself under Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks#Removal_of_text.

By both of your actions (delete then condem the contributor), it is patently obvious that neither of you want to discuss this issue, and attempt to reach an amplicable solution, and that the only solution you will accept is removing my contributions. There is no nor has there ever been any good faith demonstrated by either of you. travb (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I showed my good faith when I removed the FAQ template and explained why I did so. I see no reason as to why I should put up with you. You are exaggerating and going off topic. There is no need to whine on my talk page. Of course my desired outcome is to have the FAQ template removed, because it is completely irrelevant, but I don't care so much that I would nominate it for deletion after it's re-creation. However, Cunningham did, and I am content to let that discussion run it's course and find the will of the community. I now see no need to discuss the matter further here or on my talk page, nor will I do so. Good day! Plrk (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you may censor my comments if you find something offensive. I do not, and stand by everything I have said thus far. Plrk (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any media articles which are supportive of deletionism?

To repeat the question, is anyone aware of any media articles that are supportive of deletionists? Every media article I have read thus far is incredibly negative. Thanks in advance. (travb) Ikip (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Yes, most of the notable (pun intially not intended, but see end of comment) news coverage seems slanted towards inclusionism. Unfortunately, AFAIK there are no meta-sources — i.e. sources that would discuss why it is that most opinions that wind up in media outlets are in favour of inclusionism (or rather, and this is Pandora's box squared, in favour of that which they think inclusionism is). As someone who believes that "deletionism" does not exist and the word is merely a derogatory fighting term divisively employed by people who hate the encyclopedia aspect of Wikipedia, I have to say I enjoy the irony that maybe, with a more inclusionist approach, we could find and include some more "deletionist", or better yet, meta-analytical sources. 78.34.164.53 (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia undoubtedly has a reputation of having an enormous coverage, which is not always portrayed in a positive light - "anyone can write about anything" as if it was something bad. Some focus on the "anyone" (like Citizendium-supporters) as the negative part, others focus on the "anything" part - the latter could be called "deletionists". Perhaps "exclusionist" would be a better term? Plrk (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this is taking the shape of a meta-discussion, and that's a bad thing. Ikip, why do you want any such media articles? Would you incorporate them into the article if some were found? Plrk (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Press coverage, maybe there's something of interest in there? 78.34.149.154 (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your sincere response 78.34.149.154, so far your the only one who has giving me a substantive answer. Ikip (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that you will find a news article in support of deletionism. Basically, you can write a news paper article about an article you found important that was AFD'd and then complain about Wikipedia in general. You won't, however, see somebody writing an article about how good it was that some garage band, which has not published anything and only lives on the net, gets deleted. It is simply not noteworthy for a news paper. --Maitch (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy links

Re: diff, the "sources" don't talk about deletionism/inclusionism at all. Furthermore, they are not third-party. If the other sources mention that inclusionists and deletionists cite these policies, that's great but doesn't mean we can cite them in footnotes. –Pomte 02:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the policy links in question out of <ref>sand made them plain external links in the article text; further, I've added sources showing these policies actually come up in deletion/inclusion debates. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the whole lot. We should not, not not, be linking to either projectspace or Meta in articlespace prose. Aside from being primary sources, they don't add any insight to the article above that given by our existing (reliable, secondary) sources. How they are presented as irrelevant. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

... nor do I think the links in question belong in the extlinks section. WP:ASR is pretty clear about this - it looks like a pretty obvious failure to respect the boundary between the project and the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can find nothing on that page suggesting those are inappropriate as external links; if you can be more specific as to what guideline on that page you believe is being broken, I'd be appreciative. this is an article about Wikipedia itself and the links are properly tagged with the srlink template, so I don't seem anything glaringly wrong with the links. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, for a start, both of the policy links currently go to the same page. Secondly, that page is in constant turmoil - it thus fails the standards for stability which we expect from any wiki pages we link to. Thirdly, it's a primary source. Fourthly, it doesn't actually provide significant detail beyond that given by other sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Larry Sanger is not an inclusionist

Larry Sanger is not an inclusionist. In order to be an inclusionist you need to accept articles on all topics. Citizendium only allows family friendly articles (e.g. no material on sexuality). --Maitch (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Very few inclusionists accept articles on all topics. –Pomte 06:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Eventualism and Immediatism

I made these external links into internal links. I checked the talk page first but found nothing; I now see that there has been a debate (although on apparent conclusion) about linking to Meta, although (as far as I can tell) it was not about these particular links. I can't see how simply changing the URL makes any difference to its target's stability, so whereas I can see (and reject) an argument about stability, I can't see any point in making an internal link masquerade as an external link. Seems to make it slower to access, too, though that may be an artifact of any one of a number of caches between me and the server farm.

I can see a quick reversion coming here, but I did do my best to scan the talk pages and it seemed uncontroversial to me, so I'm not going to revert it myself right now.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see on the page history Cybercobra undid with the edit summary: "they're supposed to be external links, consider the case where someone copies the WP database". But not for these particular links. (I am not being pedantic here, just wonder if there is a different criterion why they were not all changed wholesale.)

18:22, 27 April 2009 Cybercobra (talk | contribs) (22,686 bytes) (Undid revision 286439441 by Stifle (talk) they're supposed to be external links, consider the case where someone copies the WP database) (undo)

I must admit I don't really understand the logic there- seems to me it implies that intermedia links should never be used. In which case why have them? SimonTrew (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletionism within articles

I don't quite know if the problem I'm raising fits within the Deletionist – Inclusionist debate or if it's a notability problem, or if it's something else entirely.

I'm concerned about the bloat that arises in some well-defined articles (I mainly work in historical articles), when editors choose to add their favorite factoids that illustrate a point, whether or not those are significant examples of the topic under discussion. My preference is to trim the article down to readable level by limiting examples to a small representative number of significant examples.

As it stands, this page seems to focus entirely on the issue of deleting entire articles (which I generally oppose) but I think it should have a section that addresses the issue of deleting minor factoids from articles (which I favor). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Has what you're talking about been covered in the media the same way the stuff in this article has? If not, aren't you actually suggesting we do to this article the thing you are complaining about in the first place? :) Luminifer (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly to add: German inclusionist wars

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-11-09/German_controversy Ikip (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Guardian: [Inclusionists and Deletionists] had been vying for control from early on in the site's life, but the numbers suggest that the deletionists may have won. The increasing difficulty of making a successful edit; the exclusion of casual users; slower growth – all are hallmarks of the deletionist approach.[1]
• Research study: The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contributions. We argue that this resistance may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Wikipedia. These data appear consistent with the hypothesis that the “deletionists” may be increasingly outnumbering the “inclusionists” among the administrators.[2] Ikip (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a Wikipedian!

I'm not a Wikipedian! --Brian McNeil /^talk 22:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Check the Wikinews vs Wikipedia edit counts.

I've been quoted by the press because Sandy Ordonez put me on the Communications Committee and I answered an email. --Brian McNeil /^talk 22:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Lucky me! Someone fixed it, despite looking up the edit counter, by Wikipedia rules, qualifying as WP:OR. --Brian McNeil /^talk 03:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Anon edit removed

On Wikipedia, deletionists generally argue for the deletion of articles that they allege are short and poorly written, unreferenced or referenced only by Web-based sources (especially blogs, forums, and personal web pages), that they claim fail the community standards of notability,

Added text which I removed:

"Most significantly, they advocate removal of any article that does not agree with their own personal view as they are too close-minded to comprehend that knowledge they lack may indeed be desired by others. They are akin to the editors of the print publication world which enforce a regimen of censorship. Ironically, it is the barriers of that world, which to most are insurmountable, that creates the need for zero-commitment contribution systems like Wikipedia. Unfortunately, they have come to spoil the parade here by taking actions such as deleting articles and pushing to require registration to write a new article, leaving those who wish to retain some anonymity, or simply make their contribution to the world without jumping though pointless hoops, to only revise existing articles."[3]

I removed this section and will counsel the anon about talk pages to discuss the article, adding references, and using sources. Ikip 16:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Another anon edit removed:

When Wikipedia is discussed on other sites, the deletionist sentiment is frequently cited as evidence of Wikipedia's increasing bureaucratization. [4]

Blogs. Will talk to anon. Ikip 01:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ikip, the only problems with those paragraphs is that the motives of deletionists can't be proven or documented with references. There's no doubt, however, that many deletionists have private agendas which drive their behavior. Atheists and Christians attack articles on so-called fringe religious concepts; mainstream scientists attack nascent scientific theories; conservatives attack articles that seem to accept liberal social or political trends; etc. Wikipedia is increasingly seen as the embodiment of humanity's view of itself and the world, and there is a slug-fest going on to control the encyclopedia's message.--ESB60 (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)