Association of Deletionist Wikipedians/Members

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


P social sciences.png Add your name here if you want to join this association:

  1. With strong inclusions tendencies related to schools. Neutrality 00:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Most high schools, most shopping malls, all elementary schools...and all B-Movie Bandit BS. :^) Of course, my opinion will be fair, unbiased and based on the individual article's merits. - Lucky 6.9 05:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. With strong anti-crankist tendancies. --Robert Merkel
  4. All hail the glorious Deletionist Paradise. </joke> --Slowking Man
  5. Tends to nip things in the bud, before they grow to large POV monstrosities. JFW T@lk 14:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. News reports and substubs should not masquerade as encyclopedia articles. — Dan | talk 04:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. With strong deletion tendencies related to non-notable schools. Johnleemk 14:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. Ave Eris, bringer of articles on suspicious medical phenomena, high school sweethearts, brand new film makers who aren't old enough for drivers licenses, nostalgic and contemporary schoolboys, and List of bar bet trivia! Geogre 16:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. With the strongest rancor reserved for attempts at self-promotion. Postdlf 02:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. Terminate all typos on sight! (Although I do have this strange penchant for methodically creating all possible variant article names - check out this, and even moreso this, to see my contradictory nature at work. Isn't there some quote about contradictions and great minds? :-) Jnc 09:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. I am against non-notable Schools and I think a more concrete standard should be developed to determine notability.[[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 21:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. Against articles on verbs, adjectives, numbers, and anything not encyclopedic. Anthony DiPierro 19:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. The integrity of wikipedia must be preserved through vigilant deletion of articles on trivial topics! Indrian 01:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  14. oh yeah. Duncharris 14:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  15. With strong exclusionist tendencies regarding all but the most notable schools. Also against the proliferation of utter fanstuff ... erm ... non-notable articles pertaining to popular culture. ;-) Elf-friend 13:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  16. I solemnly vow to defend this noble venture against every crackpottery, self-promotion, hagiography, fancruftery and other idiocy that I can find... if and when I feel like it, that is. Hmm. Kosebamse 18:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  17. Delete early, delete often, especially vanity articles, self-promotion and fancruft. I have some inclusionist tendencies towards lists and categories, though. jni 10:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  18. Delete. Most-used word. Utcursch 09:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  19. Article under 500 bytes will not survive ! Hashar 09:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  20. Cleanliness is next to G-dliness. G-dliness is POV that often discourages masturbation. Masturbation is writing an article about your high school while an article about Rinzai languishes. Cleanliness is POV that suports deletionism. User: NamfFohyr 04:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  21. Cool Hand Luke 00:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC). I believe high school stubs should be deleted. (see also)
  22. I am opposed to any article which covers a subject that is in no way notable. There's nothing wrong with those subjects--they're just not encyclopedic. Jacob1207 06:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  23. I favor the merging of 20 3-sentence articles to one 61-sentence over-arching article. I am a deletionist. I am Humblefool 00:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  24. For it is foretold that the production rate of garbage will be equal to the destruction rate of garbage, and Balance will be Restored to the Wiki. Lacrimosus 06:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  25. He who is not willing to take out the trash will surely perish under a pile of crap. --RoySmith 03:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. The less crap an encyclopaedia has, the better it is. Xtra 07:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. I am the fist that fights against corporate drivel. If I could find a way to get rid of the worst sort of fancruft, I would be a happy Wikipedian. Katefan0 20:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  28. Schoolcrufta delenda est! Also beware of the Garage Band Bandit. Edeans 03:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  29. Vanity alert! Delete away! ;) - Mailer Diablo 19:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  30. Delete this page! Pure vanity ;) Preisler 07:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  31. Delete memetic terminology in all articles not directly concerned with memetics. It's yet to be seen whether memetics is a proto-science or a pseudo-science and therefore using memetic terminology liberally through theoretically objective articles is gratuitous at best, and a tacit endorsement of a pseudo-science at worst. Maprovonsha172 18:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  32. The fact that we have twice as many articles as Britannica gives us more than bragging rights- it gives us cause to worry that WP is becoming too flabby to be called an encyclopedia any more. Gamecruft special operative Halidecyphon 11:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  33. If it's verifiable, factual, not POV, and more than a small stub even if semi-notable, that's usually cool. Delete non-notable lists, merge articles about specific train stations. DDerby 20:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  34. Ferret out the weasels! Death to all whateverists! J M Rice 02:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  35. Let's take out the trash. Xcali 00:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  36. Ganymead 19:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  37. Deletionist with mergist tendencies(British Rail Class 508). --Tysto 21:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  38. CDVF makes deleting useless, unencyclopedic drivel fun and easy! --FCYTravis 09:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  39. Strong Delete The ideal Wikipedia will contain only two articles, and both of them will be about meat. Until that day comes, the Deletionists must persevere. Fernando Rizo 02:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  40. At long last, a place to call home! --Ardonik 09:59, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  41. Delete, rinse, repeat. I am home. --ArmadniGeneral 15:46, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  42. Let the articles quake in fear as another Deletionist joins the cause. -- Cabhan 04:10, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  43. Death to all articles about teenagers who want the world to know what high school they went to and what their cat is called. Expand WP:CSD! I'm not entirely sure about the schools thing, but I don't expect I'll ever look them up. --IByte 7 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
  44. I hate it how every time someone thinks that a Jeopardy! contestant is the next Ken Jennings that someone creates an article about them! They're not notable in the grand scheme of things, people! And for that reason, among many, I call myself a deletionist. --OntarioQuizzer 17:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  45. I just got called a deletionist for the first time. So, I'm signing up, and I'll just toss this out: I dream of a day when every single entry with a title beginning, "List of" has been deleted or merged. The Literate Engineer 06:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  46. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Wikiacc (en) 19:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  47. The well-pruned tree grows the most gracefully. I see myself as a Disciplined Deletionist, preferring to abide by community consensus in what I delete and what I allow to stay. Denni 01:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  48. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not a receptacle for any useless garbage that pops into someone's head. -Soltak 00:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  49. Because shit happens.—encephalonέγκέφαλος 23:14, 8 August 2005
  50. Death to ALL cruft. Even my own. RasputinAXP 15:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  51. If in doubt, delete. Erwin Walsh 11:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  52. Sign me up. PhilipO
  53. Let the Daleks cry be your watchword in the Holy Fight of Deletionism. CambridgeBayWeather 09:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  54. Deletionism is my way of life. Solensean 02:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  55. Imagine making the sum of human cruft available to everybody. That's what they're doing. We're here to stop it. PaulHanson 23:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  56. There's far too much New Age Bullshit on wikipedia. I think we ought to delete most of it. Most of it is POV, and the New Age Wikipedians fight tooth and nail to keep them POV. Alot of it is irrelevent, like the many different kinds of "divination." Why don't we delete all the -ancys? Maprovonsha 22:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  57. I feel that all I do on Wikipedia is tag new pages for deletion. Get them while their new is my motto Ciraric 13:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  58. While I tend towards inclusionism, I respect your vigilance against insidious corporate PR and monkeys at keyboards who think they are Shakespeare. Loki14 14:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  59. WP:ISNOT a list of slang; I tend to think that most lists should be created by categories when they are appropriate at all, though I also live by the maxim "Never lose data." --Kgf0 16:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  60. Always a deletionest if you guys see me in en Aranda56 05:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  61. Deletable? I think so. - Kilo-Lima 19:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  62. Slash and burn. Take no prisoners. TheMadBaron 07:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  63. YES! -- Tonync 02:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  64. Death comes on swift wings to all articles that cross paths with me --Elysianfields 04:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  65. A deletionist too. *drew 08:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  66. I'm either a Deletionist with strong Mergist tendencies, or a Mergist with strong Deletionist tendencies. I suspect the former, though I do have a high tolerance for pop-culture-related articles, especially those about computer gaming and genre fiction. However, I am absolutely croggled that we have individual articles for every freakin' mini-game ever to appear on The Price is Right. I don't think I want to live in a world where there's an individual Wikipedia article for every one of those games. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 18:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  67. There are genuine articles, and then there is utter, utter crap. Reyk 03:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  68. Voice of All 16:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC). Time to take out the trash!
  69. Just because it fits, doesn't mean it sticks. | Klaw Talk 20:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  70. Vaporize the cruft tsunami!!! Swamp Ig 09:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  71. If you want to create an article, write offline and please don't waste our time! --Herrick 11:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  72. The vast majority of things are not notable. --Impaciente 18:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  73. Want to make an article? Check if anyone cares, first. Second, check if you can speak English. Third, make it in your userspace until you finish. Otherwise, I'll attack it. --YixilTesiphon 03:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  74. Say hello to my special friends {{db-bio}} and {{nonsense}} ;) Zunaid 11:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  75. Why bother rewriting crap that doesn't belong anyway? Revert, remove, delete it! Thesquire 08:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  76. I can verify that I have two eyes, two legs and two arms, and that I am also male. That doesn't mean I should write about myself. Enochlau 13:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  77. I came, I saw, I deleted. --Eeee 02:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  78. What took me so long? Die cruft die! --Wgfinley 05:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  79. Cernen, and as self-declared resident userbox whore, I think perhaps we should adopt a userbox? As for a logo, I'd suggest something plain, sort of like AIW's logo... 11:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  80. Just spend five minutes on Newpage patrol at en, and try not to be deletionist! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 10:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. delete. Delete. DELETE. Need to delete all bullshits out of WP! __earth 11:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Delete all non-notable content. Sorry, nn schools included IMO. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]
  83. Better Wikipedia articles through deletionism? You bet your sweet ass ++Deiz 23:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    1. -- Timo Müller Diskussion 20:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Still deletionist, but no Wikipedian any more. -- Timo Müller Diskussion 22:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  84. We attempt to create a repository of lasting worth; this cannot be populated by dross. Avi 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  85. I do New Pages Patrol, I don't really have a choice in the matter, I'm 1000% deletionist. Rory 22:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  86. Excellent idea. Stifle 13:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  87. Let's slaughter all unworthy pagez!!! MaxSem 16:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  88. I am interested even in the quality of my toilet paper. Why should I bother using Wikijunk then? --Dodo 21:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  89. in the interest of a robust, junk-free wikipedia, I am tempted to put a ((nonsense)) template on this page. CrzRussian 23:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  90. Delete per nom MLA 11:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  91. Death to the junk. Quatonik
  92. Eliminate unnecessary articles for a better, safer, Wikipedia. Friar Xion
  93. Trim the fat, comrades! Deleting is sexy. --Hyphen5 12:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  94. Because it is encyclopedia. LukMak 12:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  95. Death to useless crap! Fishhead64 22:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  96. Wikipedia isn't a wall. Martin Kozák 16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  97. Remove spam from our dearly loved 'pedia! Kjetil r 21:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  98. Kill it all! Admrboltz 05:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  99. so excited that this is association exists --Strothra 05:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  100. Today, deletion. Tomorrow, Wikipedia being taken seriously by librarians. Deltabeignet 05:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  101. It's all about the concision, baby!--TrianaC 06:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  102. Consign cruft to the crackling conflagaration, destroy dexterously the deleterious detritus, remove all reference to repugnant ridiculosity, annihilate all annoying alliteration...wait... SM247 03:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  103. Against vanity articles, ignorant users, lunatics, trolls and proselitism, deletion is your solution. --JRGL 07:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  104. Well, let's face the thruth, I kind of agree with the above Blinking Spirit 21:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  105. Wikipedia is not a wastepaper basket Lurker 14:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  106. If you're in the article and you wrote the article I'll do my best to delete the article. Dipics 02:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  107. When it absolutely, positively has to be deleted overnight DelEx. Shazbot85 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  108. I'm not deleting the article, I'm deleting the usless pile of crap. The Hybrid
  109. All is vanity! And subject is non-notable! Green Hornet
  110. Too late, gone. --Húsönd 03:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  111. Down with cruft! Especially nice that I found this today, seeing as we just got CSD:G11 on en. :-) --Storkk 15:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  112. *Delete per the socks!! Vyse 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  113. My three favorite letters are A F D. ADW comes in second though. Kill the cruft. --Shrieking Harpy Gay flag.svgTalk|Count 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  114. Oops, did I hit the delete button? Seraphimblade 03:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  115. Will there be refreshments? NeoFreak 10:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  116. Thou shall not fill Wikipedia with meaningless non-notable crufty anecdotes about the local high school. MartinDk 22:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  117. This time at school me and two friends made up this indiscriminate list of bands. Elomis 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  118. --Moreschi 20:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  119. We should filter out all the crap in wikipedia. We need stricter notability guidlines. --Sir James Paul 21:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  120. Inclusionist turned deletionist here! Stuff that violates WP:NOR is what gives Wikipedia a bad name. Don't stand for it, delete it. - Chardish 07:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  121. Bushcarrot 02:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  122. Delete this page as listcruft. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  123. Deletion is fun. Moogy 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  124. Get rid of nonsense tabloids from Wiki. Causesobad 02:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  125. I will 必勝 as a Delitionist. younilha 02:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  126. Three Cheers For Sweet Deletion Dark Devil 10:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  127. This is just about the only article I wouldn't delete. BlackBear
  128. User:Wikihermit 23:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  129. It is true that WP is not paper, but that does not mean it should be a micocosm of "TEH INTERNEST!" User:RogueNinja
  130. The integrity of wikipedia must be preserved through vigilant deletion of articles on trivial or wrong! topics --Benfeig 00:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  131. Be bold--delete an article today. Blueboy96 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  132. Wikipedia should continue to be an encyclopedia. Theredhouse7 21:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  133. BE BOLD. Delete pages that support deletionism. I join this list entirely out of protest. Mathiastck 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  134. I would like to second (third, etc.) all of the "delete this very page" jokes above. Tregoweth 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  135. According to the Grand Unified Theory, Wikipedia should only have one article. RandomHumanoid 02:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  136. Peace 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  137. Somehow what I had written to post here got ... err ... umm ... deleted. ô¿ô 16:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  138. Deleting articles is a beautiful thing. Saget53 22:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  139. What is/are "sports"? And how is anybody involved in it/them "notable"? Qworty 17:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  140. Deletionists in popular culture! --Finngall talk 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  141. If the title starts with "List of..", delete it. If the article will never be more than one sentence, merge it. Man It's So Loud In Here 23:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  142. Sources must not be deleted without proof. But if they truly must go, it will go and that's the Bottom line cause the Great Administrators said so. Night Leon
  143. cite your sources. A former inclusionist.Djgranados 18:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  144. Nobody cares that your band made a video with a $50 digital camera, then managed up enough tech savvy to post it on YouTube. I'm sure your grandmother is proud of you for winning the local pie eating contest, but we're not. Your daughter is not notable because she got a B+ in her 4th grade math class. Feel the swift cut of my WikiScythe across the neck of your "List of persons of Mexican-American-Indian-Russian-German-Norse-Eskimo descent who live in houses that are between 2073 and 2104 square feet and were born on Tuesday." And always remember: this is WikiPEDIA, not WikiRUMORBLOG. Gromlakh 07:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  145. I like school articles, but we do need a massive cleanout. my 'pedia page Dendodge 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  146. Mainly against bios that need to be deleted or merged as they simply do not stand on their own (e.g. w:Joe Ryan), wannabe authors (nothing ever published), pseudo internet celebrities, obscure professional wrestlers, etc. For allowing articles of notable products e.g. popular commercial beverages that can be distinguished from those which are clearly advertising. The rest decided on a case by case basis (your basic fence sitter / lurking member). For keeping schools, within reasonable limitations. Really obscure or trivial pop culture stuff I'll likely vote to Delete Bsharkey 21:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  147. I have my own blind criteria for deletion: articles who can prove to have at least one paper book written about their subject shall survive, all the others shall we deleted! I believe this criteria would delete 90% of the useless stuff. SyG 13:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  148. If only I was as adamant about my own excess lard as I am about Wikipedia's! Kelvinc 04:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  149. Purity Through Deletion. Xdenizen 11:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  150. I've found my place. Terrillja 01:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  151. Exterminate! Exterminate! --Woland37 21:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  152. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Not a phonebook. Strikeout Sister 01:48, 28 November 200(UTC)
  153. The lesser evil is some time falseDanSand 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  154. I support joining this club per nom. --Call me Bubba 02:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  155. Twinkle is good because of the anti-vandalism tools; superb because of the CSD tab. Mynameinc 02:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  156. Finally, I have found a home! So happy there are so many like-minded Wikipedians. --MrShamrock 04:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  157. Delete 16x9 22:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  158. Less is the new more. Take Thelongview 12:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  159. If you can't beat em.. Jnnnnn 05:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  160. I delete a lot of whitespace, vain signature formatting on talk pages, advertisements, etc. Tyciol 17:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  161. No distinctions! No mercy!
  162. I'm a deletionist, and proud of it. It is important that people show no compassion when interpreting Wiki policies. We do not want to set a precedence of inclusionism by letting a few articles slide. Groink 12:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  163. Being a redirectionist is boring. Computerjoe 16:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  164. Alexius08 01:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  165. Cordially yours from uk-wiki --A1 21:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  166. Let's delete footballers and comedians and news reporters Spiderone 20:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  167. Deletionists? They don't exist - pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... (GregJackP 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC))
  168. Delete silly biographies and exhaustive repetitions --Knight1993 16:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  169. Delete Substubs and obscure musicians and their albums (Also, Kidz Bop doesn't need a page for every album. Ronk01 01:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  170. Deletion is fun. Fortunately for us, thousands of new articles are created on average every day so we'll never run out of cannon fodder. --81.151.160.245 20:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  171. Vibhijain 09:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  172. Kadanuumuu 04:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  173. Jbribeiro1 23:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Against inclusionist reactionary crap. I'm active at wiki-pt, so you all know it's a global fight....
  174. Eman2129 03:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  175. Gsingh 20:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  176. The point of Wikipedia is to provide people with information. In order to allow people to find the information that they want, some standard must exist so that when someone is looking for that information they can find it without having to wade through dozens of miscellaneous articles. I call it the "John Smith" principle: If you look up John Smith, you will get a redirect page, as the name is fairly common. However, if there are too many articles on too many people named John Smith, then your disambiguation page can become so cluttered that finding the important ones can be extremely difficult and actually harm the quality of Wikipedia. The same thing applies to other categories...if a given level of accepted notability would make such a disambiguation page ridiculously cluttered, then that level is too broad. Tyrenon 13:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  177. We need to raise standards of notability - and clean up listcruft and spurious hatnotes/links/references/etc. --Karl.brown (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  178. A great idea!--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  179. we shall defend the encyclopedia, rubbish shall not pass!--Nickanc (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  180. Proud to be a Deletionist Wikipedian Alpedio (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  181. Better a Deletionist than a Delutionist. I am a kind butcher in the wikipedian army Casper 1 May 2013
  182. Wikipedia is about information. There is no room for frivolous lollygagging. I will be known as the butcher of Wikipedia!! Newsjunky12 (Talk)
  183. Anshuk (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  184. Strong Delete 172.2.81.134 19:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  185. Delete is the best protection of Wikipedia!----三石樑桂老 (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  186. If I'm not allowed to delete everything, then at least I can delete self-promotion, advertising, spin, hype, smoke and bs. In so doing, I'm trying to uphold the WP:GNG. AadaamS (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  187. Why should tiny, poorly written articles stay when they needed cleanup years ago? Retartist (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)