- See also: Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians
Inclusionism is the philosophy that information should be liberally added and retained on Wikipedia. It is espoused by users called inclusionists who favor keeping and amending problematic articles over deleting them. Inclusionists are generally less concerned with the question of notability, and instead focus on whether or not an article is factual, with merit, or useful.
Inclusionism is opposed to deletionism which supports the deletion of unworthy articles and exclusionism which involves removal of unhelpful information (and deletion of an entire article only if such removal leaves nothing behind). In other areas, inclusionism usually aligns with eventualism because both philosophies hold that articles with mixed quality of content should be retained and will be improved in time. As the size of Wikipedia grows, incrementalists may become more inclusionist as the standards for notability become easier to meet. Inclusionists do not necessarily lean toward either end of the mergism-separatism or exopedianism-metapedianism spectrums.
A favorite phrase of inclusionists is "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia." Since Wikipedia does not have the same space limitations as a paper encyclopedia, there is no need to restrict content in the same way that a paper encyclopedia does. Usually the AFD discussion takes up the same or greater amount of disk space than the article. It has also been suggested that no performance problems result from having many articles . Inclusionists claim that authors should take a more open-minded look at content criteria. Articles on people, places, and concepts of little note may be perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia in this view. Some inclusionists do not see a problem with including pages which give a factual description of every person on Earth.
From a deletionist or exclusionist viewpoint, inclusionists appear to be arguing for the value of material and information which is substandard, or inadequately verified; however, inclusionists counter that there is little harm in keeping material that might some day be improved as information on the topics become more widely available. Inclusionists also point out that Wikipedia is not meant to be a poor copy of the Britannica, but rather a unique encyclopedia that should exist as "the sum of all human knowledge." Furthermore, inclusionists argue that the concept of "notability", an idea that many deletionists use as a basis for selecting which articles ought to remain and which deleted, usually has no objective criteria. They argue that reliance on such a concept does more harm than good to the goals of the project.
Inclusionists may be perceived as having a greater acceptance of trivialities, small articles, non-traditional topics, and non-academic articles; this may cause them opposition by those who hold stricter views about the proper content of an encyclopedia. Inclusionists often see this project as a completely new and revolutionary way of storing and organizing all human knowledge. Many editors may object to articles such as a "List of tennis players who appeared on the David Letterman Show in 1995", but some inclusionists strongly support such items, arguing that they are valid additions to an encyclopedia aimed at being a repository of all human knowledge. Inclusionists may feel such critics are simply suffering from the academic standards kick. Inclusionists also point to the fact that there are no concrete standards for determining how noteworthy or notable a topic is.
Two important prerequisites for additions to Wikipedia are that the information is correct and well placed. That last aspect requires a good structuring of Wikipedia in levels of detail, with general articles linking to more detailed 'subarticles', which in turn link to still more detailed ones, so that (ideally, eventually) on the one hand people who are not interested in certain details will not be bothered by them, while on the other hand people who are interested in them will easily find them through just a few well-placed links. If the information is not thus well placed or Wikipedia is not well structured to place the info, then that should be changed instead of removing the info. If someone finds something interesting enough to write about, then chances are that someone else will (one day) find it interesting enough to read about, so it should be in Wikipedia. If that person does not know where to place the info, then that should not stop them from putting it somewhere. Someone else will then (eventually) put it in the right place. Although of course what is the 'right place' also changes over time. If for example the info does not warrant a separate article yet, it can be kept in a higher level article, where it might become a 'seed' that attracts other related info, which together might later warrant a separate (sub)article. Such loose facts are often placed in trivia sections at the bottom of an article. Removing those seeds will stunt the growth of Wikipedia. In this area of thought, inclusionism has natural connections with (1) eventualism and (2) structurism, which seeks to build logical content containers even if some of them are still empty and will not be filled with content for some years to come. It also can be viewed as paralleling the legal standard of presumption of innocence.
Arguments against deletion 
- Deletionism goes against the premise of Wikipedia: "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." — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia.
- It's easy to criticize and delete, whereas it's much more difficult to do research and create content. "Better to light a candle than curse the darkness." — Peter Benenson, founder of Amnesty International.
- Article additions and expansions, and allowing time for them to occur, is highly superior to simply deleting articles.
- Instead of deleting articles altogether, they can be merged with other articles (see Mergism).
- Notability of articles is sometimes very subjective. For some, the US presidential candidate John Anderson might be a noted person; others who don't live in the United States might feel that the Scottish scientist John Anderson is more prominent.
- It can be discouraging when articles created by first-time contributors and newer users are deleted without (in their opinion) a good reason. In their view, at least, the subject matter is noteworthy.
- It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia for information and instead find that the relevant article existed at one point but has been deleted. This discourages both Wikipedia readership and authorship.
- Deleting an article under the generic basis of notability both reduces Wikipedia to the level of traditional encyclopedias (which won't cover topics that Wikipedia will for various reasons, including notability), and also doesn't provide the oversight that a traditional encyclopedia has to justify it trimming articles. Part of the reason people use Wikipedia is that it is a vibrant source of obscure knowledge, especially about obscure topics that aren't covered in a more traditional encyclopedia. Other methods of ensuring quality, such as labeling a page "In Need of Editing and Sources", are more than enough to correct problems.
- The Wikipedia search engine was updated and improved in 2010, in which "Search suggestions are now improved to get you to the page you are looking for more quickly," as reported on the Wikimedia blog on May 13, 2010. (link: "A new look for Wikipedia".) This serves to nullify the deletionist argument that "too many unnoteworthy or obscure articles impede finding the relevant stuff..." in Wikipedia searches.
- Search, categorization, and other technical measures for organization can diminish the difficulty in finding information even when there are many articles about insignificant subjects.
- Deletionists may subjectively pick-and-choose from a long and diverse list of Wikipedia notability and other guidelines as a rationale for the blanket deletion of an article. When one chosen standard is disproven, another rule is searched for and then stated as a rationale for deletion.
- Deletionists may use absolutist rationales and stances to justify article deletion. A notable example in Articles for deletion logs is arguing that absolutely no reliable sources exist to establish notability for and/or verify an article, while utilizing only one brief search for news and other sources, such as on Google or Google news, to qualify the statement. Sometimes it takes only seconds to disqualify such statements by utilizing web searches in other mediums, particularly those that are empirical, research-based, and lack a profit motive.
- Some deletionists will maliciously delete articles that are on subjects that they find politically, economic or religious uncomfortable, or delete information which goes against their personal beliefs even when it is fully sourced, which is against two policies of Wikipedia: free knowledge and NPOV.
- It's easy to say "I don't know anything of that" about local people, politics, economics, religion, events, music, sports and whatever all around the Earth, but when it's your own hometown or native country, you have heard from in the local media, and know it's local importance and would like to keep it.
- Deletion leads to Wikipedia being split up. There are proposes to create an "Inclupedia" mirror website, and there is a Deletionpedia. Also, a lot of theme-wikis like "Star Wars" Wikipedia. Do you have time/want to be active on all those wikis, when it could be all herre, "under the same roof", where NPOV is what we want?
- If Wikimedia Commons can add so much of the world in picture, why can't Wikipedia do that in words?
- Articles of recent events are often said to fit better into the Wikinews, which isn't true. The difference between Wikipedia and Wikinews is not what's written, but rather how it's is written. An event can fit in both, written like an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia and like in a newspaper on Wikinews.
- Articles often vandalized by vandals (like schools, often a target for article deletion) can just be locked. Sadly, this reduces the opportunity to edit the article, but you can still read it and it's better for the informations searcher (who we actually write for) than no article at all. Or else we can say: "Shut down Wikipedia once for all. No Wikipedia no problems!".
- Articles with commercial connections, like companies, are often deleted on a belief that "everything commercial is only bad, just because it's commercial. Let's delete it". Sorry, but that's POV.
- When articles are to be deleted in one languages, they might be translated into other languages. Is the language that still keeps them doing any wrong?
- Notability guidelines may lead to lies being told. Let's say we require a number of employees for a company to be on Wikipedia. This would cause the company to lie about it's number of employees to everyone just to get a Wikipedia article.
- Even if Wikipedia's role is not to turn the unfamous into famous, there is a risk that's what it already had done when some such articles may slip through the notability guidelines for years.
- Even if we are leaving the paper age, some people still have preconceptions what an encyclopedia is and can only include, dated from the paper age. As the years progress, more and more people accept Wikipedia being allowed to include most knowledge, and it's not a distant future we're talking of.
- Deletionism may cause disappointed contributors to leave the project. Fun?
- Some popular culture may be picked up by cultural eliticism (those who say Ingmar Bergman's movies are better than splatter movies just because it's considered "good culture" among themselves). Popular culture is often said being "fancruft", "unnecessary knowledge" and "unimportant information". Sorry, but labelling knowledge like that's POV. How important something is it's up to the reader, not to us all as Wikipedia.
- Deletionism may favour urban districts rather than rural, since many small towns don't have a lot of world famous people, but only people who are important for their town.
- It's easy for an administrator to delete, as her or she can still watch deleted articles when needing the knowledge. Other users can't...
- Whenever I come to any other topic-related Wiki (like a comic books wiki, Star Wars wiki or any other topic, no matter if I'm interested in it or not), I always think: "-How much I wish everything here, both articles and contributors, was on Wikipedia instead (with NPOV, of course)".
- On Wikipedia, there is place, but still we seem to behave as if it wasn't. Wanting to delete when there is space is like fighting over food in a developed country.
- Let's compare deletion of Wikipedia to a building that's ripped apart during construction. Why were Sweden, Switzerland and the the USA among the world's richest countries by 1970? Answer = Not having in any of the world wars on home soil (OK, USA had Pearl Harbour in World War II, but not much more), they didn't need time to re-build houses bombed at war! Instead, they could continue developing their economy, education and welfare when many other have to re-start from point zero again.
- No one is a deletionist when they search for the information.
- For every year, we write more and more for generations who have grown up with the "everything is on the Internet" perspective, rather than "Which book am I going too use this time?". So what's better than having the information here, where NPOV is the ambition?
- Picking up articles and nominate them for deletion is somtimes seen as a "good job" by users, which will lead to administratorship. Please fight the idea; let other things decide administratorship.
- Sometimes it's said that after some time at Wikipedia, you will "learn what belongs to Wikipedia or not, and what's encyclopedic". Having edited since July 2005 something and as one of the most active users on the Swedish language Wikipedia, I'm still strongly against most deletion nominations.
- When some articles are nominated, they have been around for years with no problem, so how can they suddenly be considered non-notable? And if the deletion is carried out, Wikipedia has just taken yet another step backwards.
- One argument for deletion is, "Deletion solves all problems. No article, no problem." That's like beheading someone to cure brain cancer. It gets rid of the cancer, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
- Another argument for deletion is, "Inclusionism is for lazy fatwads." What kind of an argument is that? That they've resorted to name-calling reflects very poorly on them.
- Refering to Wikipedia as a junkyard and what's junk is POV.
- Sometimes, people use the absence of one article to favor deletion of existing articles. Sorry, but the absence of article A doesn't excuse deletion of article B.
- Deletions seem to be behind a lot of conflicts on Wikipedia, where users call each other names, leading to administrators suspending offenders, and focus moves from articles to conflict, turning Wikipedia into social media. More rules, more conflicts.
"We want the Demon, you see, to extract from the dance of atoms only information that is genuine, like mathematical theorems, fashion magazines, blueprints, historical chronicles, or a recipe for ion crumpets, or how to clean and iron a suit of asbestos, and poetry too, and scientific advice, and almanacs, and calendars, and secret documents, and everything that ever appeared in any newspaper in the Universe, and telephone books of the future…"
See also 
- Anonymous User Protection Squad (AUPS)
- Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians
- Association of Deletionist Wikipedians
- Association of Mergist Wikipedians
- Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist
- Proposed policy for wiki closure
- Transwiki:Constructionism and reductionism (wiki)