Association of Deletionist Wikipedians

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add,
but when there is nothing left to take away.

I, Ambi, hereby establish the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians -- (ADW).

I want the deletionist Wikipedians of the world to know that all of us need to get a life as soon as possible. Of course, no one wants to delete everything, so we all have varying degrees of deletionism. That's fine. I personally advocate keeping schools; some don't. But if you think we should be deleting vanity, substubs, or some other form of garbage that's been tolerated lately, come on in!

Membership is not limited. All you have to do to become a member is list your name here. If you feel like expressing your deletionist feelings, you can do so at /Blurbs.

The current General Secretary is Ambi. The Secretary can resign or be removed from office by a 60% majority among the Association's members. Term limits are being discussed. All members are eligible to be Secretary, so nominations are unnecessary. Matters that concern the ADW as a group may necessitate a vote.

Contents

[edit] Goals

  1. Outpace rampant inclusionism
  2. Further our goal of a quality encyclopedia containing as little junk as possible

[edit] Voting for General Secretary

Voting for General Secretary has concluded. Ambi, with seven of eight votes cast (one abstention), is the victor. The votes may be seen at /Election1. Congratulations, Ambi! --Slowking Man 22:22, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

[edit]

File:TeruMikamiDeathNote.JPG
Sakujo. SAKUJO. SAKUJO!!!!

SAKUJO

[edit]

New logo proposed by Ukdragon37

I know I'm inclusionist and I don't really belong here and I'm not a member etc., but under the inclusionist spirit I donate my newly designed deletionist logo and propose for it to be made official.(Proposed size 200px) Anyone who seconds(or opposes) this idea can put their username here. -- Ukdragon37 17:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  1. Keep Hoorah! - A new logo. We have needed one! Kilo-Lima 17:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    1. Sorry but since it's too cluttered; I don't like it now. Sorry. -- Kilo-Lima 18:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
      1. Ha ha. I assume the extreme clutter was deliberate. If it wasn't, it should have been. Excellent joke. Rubywine 13:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

Another logo by Eeee
  • So I decided to do a logo (right) for the deletionist group. How does everyone feel about it? --Eeee 02:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. The logo with 3 buttons is nice and pregnant. --Egg 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I like the logo with 3 buttons too. --Dodo 21:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. This is the one. Utcursch 10:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Accept as nom --Ezratrumpet 17:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Yep, I like it Lurker 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Is this logo irrelevant, or is the previous one? If so, shouldn't one be deleted inasmuch as the history and working papers of how we developed the logo-consensus are trivial?
  • They should both be deleted as irrelevant logocruft. ergot 01:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. All you need is the Delete key. The rest is redundant clutter. (Not that I'm a deletionist mind you.) Rubywine 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Preferred version over the above. Rudget (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not a logo, but...

Too many unnoteworthy or obscure articles impede finding the relevant stuff, like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

This is not a logo, but it might be useful. Mikael Häggström 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested deletion keywords

  • POV, advert, Unencyclopedic, embarassing vanity
  • Non-notable (nn), Not notable yet, Not notable enough
  • ListCruft! VanityCruft! GameCruft! SchoolCruft! ChristCruft! LeetCruft! Adcruft! SpamCruft! CruftCruft!
  • Wikipedia is not Google™ (WP:WING)
  • Delete per nom
  • WP:ISNOT, Doesn't belong here
  • Vanispamcruftisement (VSCA)
  • Counter systematic bias by deleting other articles as well. (When people accuse you of systematic bias)
  • Strong Delete, Speedy Delete, Very Strong Delete, Strongest Delete Possible

[edit] Quotes & Arguments

Wikipedia needs to be cleaned up!
  • Wikipedia is not a junkyard, counter to the inclusionist quote, Wikipedia is not paper. --Improv 06:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's what cleanup is for, not deletion.
Some junkyards can't be cleaned up.
Split then, not delete.
Translate please?
Only an inclusionist wouldn't understand it.
Because deletionists use their awkward language(s). Too bad.
How about this:Wikipedia is not /dev/null?
Translation: Wikipedia is not a catch-all. Nightsmaiden 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The proliferation of mediocrity is never its own excuse, and the absence of good information does not obviate the need for that information. Geogre 16:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What???
Only an inclusionist wouldn't understand it.
Because deletionists use their awkward language(s). Too bad.
Roughly Translated into relevant form: The fact that useless entries breed is not an excuse for allowing useless entries to breed, and just because there aren't good entries doesn't mean we don't need them.
And presumably there is some proposed mechanism where deleting "useless entries" magically creates good entries somewhere else? --86.142.97.137 12:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nightsmaiden 19:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not Google JFWT@lk 20:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia should replace Google.
Somebody has been reading my essay :) -- Avraham 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
...
And keep out all the bad results/articles.
There is no bad information - use "Inappropriate" instead. Move it then.
So, Wikipedia should become the Index for the internet, rather than an Encyclopedia of established facts? I kind of think we need both.Nightsmaiden 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Single-sentence "substubs" do not an encyclopedia entry make. Or, if you prefer, substubs suck. Mediocrity should not be tolerated! - Lucky 6.9 05:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, kill your baby before the baby grows.
Roe v. Wade says we can.
Why should we follow his/her butt?
Do you object to making an outline before you write an essay?
No one said that. Don't post your draft HERE.

Nightsmaiden 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Roses are red/violets are blue/in Soviet Wikipedia/bad article delete you. --Slowking Man
Translate please?
Only an inclusionist wouldn't understand.
Because deletionists use their awkward language(s). Too bad.
  • Wikipedia is and will always be an encyclopedia. [...] It is not a general base of knowledge. - Anthony DiPierro
But Jimbo said that Wikipedia should be the sum of total knowledge on the world.
That is technically impossible, so we'll be an encyclopedia.
That is possible. Wikipedia is not a paper.
That is impossible, there is a delay between someone knowing a thing and it being entered into Wikipedia. Nightsmaiden 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Verifiable ≠ Enyclopedic Johnleemk 12:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But Jimbo said that Wikipedia should be the sum of total knowledge on the world.
That is technically impossible, so we'll be an encyclopedia.
That is possible. Wikipedia is not a paper.
That is impossible, there is a delay between someone knowing a thing and it being entered into Wikipedia. Nightsmaiden 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Inclusionism is the easy option. Elf-friend 20:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why choose the harder one?
Path of least resistance makes crooked men and crooked streams.
Path of most resistance makes minced men, dead editors, mad people... They make people crazy.
Actually, an overload of sediment makes crooked streams... possibly useful metaphor for deletionists... Nightsmaiden 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not toilet paper, as opposed to the inclusionist quote, Wikipedia is not paper. 165.21.154.111 08:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So, delete everything till nothing's left.
So delete the bad stuff till no bad articles are left.
Not even good ones.
...without further thoughts?
If you doubt that your spouse loves you, kill.
We have no worries: the lawyers on the Dream Team are all deletionists.
That's why it's called dream team - everything's only a dream after being deleted.
What if I'm just having an unsure kind of day? Nightsmaiden 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Brevity is the doom of Wikipedia.
Citation needed.
Anyone else read The Phantom Tollbooth? Equating brevity with removal of content reminds me very much of the Which. Nightsmaiden 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Brevity is ... stub.
It doesn't have a stub template.
By that logic, expletives are the height of wit. Nightsmaiden 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a dumpster —attr. Viajero
Wikipedia shouldn't be EMPTY. It should be full.
Of good articles not in need of deletion.
True enough.
  • Better Wikipedia articles through deletionism? You bet your sweet ass. Deiz 14:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you an inclusionist?
Are you a deletionist?
You can predict the answer. No. I suppose if you're a nihilist and consider nonexistence "Better".
  • Wikipedia is not Wikipedia --Ron Ritzman 02:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Because deletionists delete everything.
Because we miss a small part of inclusionist stuff that needs deleted.
  • Famous ≠ Notable Lurker 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Famous ≈ Notable
Citation needed.
WP:N
If enough people take note of them, they are notable. I don't recall anyone ever saying humanity is good at only paying attention to important things. The fact that people found them notable is notable information of itself. Sad, but notable. Nightsmaiden 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Deletion solves all problems. No article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No article, no problem, no Wikipedia.
Only bad articles have problems.
Except dead air. Nightsmaiden 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not Chewing Tobacco, and Other Surreal Essays.
What are you talking about???
Inclusionists wouldn't know.
Yeah, because it's written in Moron language, a special language for deletionists.
Translate this alien language, please.
Everyone knows it except inclusionists.
Yeah, because it's written in Moron language, a special language for deletionists.
  • Inclusionism is for lazy fatwads. Bsharkey 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deletionism is for lazy builders.
A lazy fatwad is worse than a lazy builder.
The word "fatwad" doesn't exist.
  • Nuke it like a bad Windows installation. 75.53.198.187 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not try reinstall it?
Who reinstalls Windows? LINUX!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dreadful... So then how do you still have a PC with which to constrict Wikipedia? I guess something's worth saving.
  • Wikipedia is not the Internet. Kelvinc 04:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
But Jimbo said that Wikipedia should be the sum of total knowledge on the world.
That is technically impossible, so we'll be an encyclopedia.
That is possible. Wikipedia is not a paper.
That is impossible, there is a delay between someone knowing a thing and it being entered into Wikipedia. Nightsmaiden 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not just "view article ooh look an edit tab click replace content with KAKAKAKAKAKA click enter admin deletes/reverts it." 97.96.166.65 01:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be vandalism/test edits. Nothing to do with deleting an article. Reverting it would be easier.
What if there was nothing good to start with?
Examples?
  • Deletion is the final solution to the extremist (extremely deletionist page-blanking vandals and extremely inclusionist spammers) question. Alexius08 06:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Why not try warning, blocking or page protecting instead?
What if spammers/vandals become admins and then spam/vandalize.
Spammers and vandals won't likely to pass their RfA/RfB. Don't worry, dear.
  • Chuck Norris is a deletionist. Mynameinc 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
So what?
Do it means that he can delete a million pages in a minute?

[edit] Other users' opinions

Suggested content for your explanations: Judgements on schools, lists, categories, relisting on VfD, (please add to this list)

[edit] Members

Please see Association of Deletionist Wikipedians/Members. Feel free to add yourself.

[edit] Code of Deletionism

  1. Thou shalt not create an article that knowingly violates WP:NOT, WP:N,WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV.
  2. Thou shalt not tolerate an Inclusionist to include worthless screed, lest we become fucking Uncyclopedia.
  3. Thou shalt not tolerate an Eventualist to put off deleting a sourceless, badly written, original research laden article about a garage band's guitarist simply because they scream WP:IGNORE.
  4. Thou shalt not ever resurrect, recreate or reanimate that which has been deleted. It has failed and burns now forever in Bad Article Hell, profane not our Wikipedia with such again.
  5. Thou shalt not hesitate to apply the Speedy Deletion Tag, but only after making damn sure the article you are tagging REALLY fits the criteria.
  6. Thou shalt not delete an article only if it's consensus admits fulfills WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV.
  7. Thou shalt not apply thy banhammer to newbies, but obligatory attempt to guide them to Articles for Creation.
  8. Thou shalt not bite the newbies, even if they are creating for-shit articles, for they are the future.
  9. Thou shalt not be a WP:DICK to prove your WP:POINT, but you will be WP:BOLD as a lion to stand up for what is Holy and Proper to be Deleted.

[edit] See also


v • d • e
Wikipedian associations
Main article space philosophy
General philosophy
Structural philosophy
Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians"