|This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to join!|
- To continuously improve Wikipedia and make it the most comprehensive source of reliable encyclopedic information available on the planet.
- Support Wikipedia's premise to comprise the sum of all human knowledge, freely accessible to all humans.
How to help
There are several ways to help:
- Notify your comrades on the talk page when interesting discussions, rescues, or deletions are occurring.
- Read to understand Inclusionism and Deletionism and how they interplay on Wikipedia.
- Declare your opinions on your user page using the templates below.
- Argue for Inclusion at relevant Village pump discussions.
- Join the Article Rescue Squadron and improve its articles tagged for rescue.
- 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.
- Wikiproject Deletion sorting manually places AfDs into a plethora of categories; help them categorize or monitor one of the categories they create.
- 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.
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.
Feel free to add yourself here!
- User:Jeffledwin --Jeffledwin (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2018 (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.
- Agne27 01:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC) - a worthwhile contribution to improve Wikipedia
- Abeg92 16:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC). Absolutely.
- Kevin Murray
- Snowolf(talk) on 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- DGG 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC) - (also a member of WikiProject Deletion, & consider the 2 compatible)
- Devin Murphy 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- DCmacnut<> 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC) I consider myself an inclusionist, especially for Wikipedia's in other languages.
- Lova Falk (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC) improve and expand instead of delete!
- Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC) - Wikipedia has unlimited space; we should start using more of it. Everything is notable to someone.
- 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.
- Flaviusvulso (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Draeco (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Cyclopia - 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.
- 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)
- Jeff Ogden (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- User:Ne0Freedom: as long as it is verifiable, Quotations don't need to be NPOV. All History books are written by those triumphant in wars, and therefore POV. --Ne0 (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Smartcom5 (Talk ?) 16:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Dunno why i wasn't still listed here, since i've got the template on my userpage from the very beginning. Anyway, here i am!
- Universal Life (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- User:Knight of Gloucestershire Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Toby Bartels (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC): There's still hope! Wikipedia is not paper. The only standard for notability should be verifiability.
- Ayoopdog Ayoopdog (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC), I am sick of Wikipedia being run by pro-delelitionists who remove heaps of budding articles.
- allixpeeke (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- The Obento Musubi (talk · contribs)
- Ariel Pontes (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Illegitimate Barrister, 12:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Inclusionism! Tolerance, not bigotry.
- Mitar (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- Hazarasp (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thewellman (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC) I'm not usually a joiner, but these goals deserve all the support I can offer.
- — Myk Streja (when?) 02:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Venerable is not the same as verifiable or reliable. Just because a source is "new" does not mean it can't be used or relied upon.
- A Guy into Books (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC) I just do not agree with how easily people delete perfectly good articles just because they cant find a dozen references on google.
- StrayBolt (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC) - "It is a difficult task…"
- 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)
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.