Association of Deletionist Wikipedians

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 now there is a place to voice our opinions and further our agenda of a big, strong, garbage-free Wikipedia.

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 in /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.

"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."

— Wikimedia Foundation Vision Statement


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

Voting for General Secretary[edit]

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)



Other wikimedia associations of users logos
  • Ukdragon37 proposal
  1. Keep Hoorah! - A new logo. We have needed one! Kilo-Lima 17:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1. Sorry but since it's too cluttered; I don't like it now. Sorry. -- Kilo-Lima 18:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    2. 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)Reply[reply]
  • Eeee proposal'
  1. The logo with 3 buttons is nice and pregnant. --Egg 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I like the logo with 3 buttons too. --Dodo 21:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. This is the one. Utcursch 10:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Accept as nom --Ezratrumpet 17:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Yep, I like it Lurker 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  2. Preferred version over the above. Rudget (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Rocks! But the W should be crossed as it is in Wikipedia, and maybe the keys should be cut in half or something to indicate they have been deleted! --Johnanth 00:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Bruce The Deus proposal
  1. ...

Not a logo, but...[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Suggested deletion keywords[edit]

  • 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

Quotes & Arguments[edit]

  • Wikipedia is not a junkyard, counter to the inclusionist quote, Wikipedia is not paper. --Improv 06:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not /dev/null UninvitedCompany 20:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not Google JFWT@lk 20:00, 23 Oct 2004 (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)
  • Roses are red/violets are blue/in Soviet Wikipedia/bad article delete you. --Slowking Man
  • Wikipedia is and will always be an encyclopedia. [...] It is not a general base of knowledge. - Anthony DiPierro
  • Verifiable ≠ Enyclopedic Johnleemk 12:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Inclusionism is the easy option. Elf-friend 20:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not toilet paper, as opposed to the inclusionist quote, Wikipedia is not paper. 08:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If in doubt, delete. Erwin Walsh
  • Brevity is the soul of wit. HatTrick
  • Brevity is ... wit. Mazin07
  • Wikipedia is not a dumpster —attr. Viajero
  • Better Wikipedia articles through deletionism? You bet your sweet ass. Deiz 14:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not Wikipedia --Ron Ritzman 02:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Famous ≠ Notable Lurker 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Deletion solves all problems. No article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not Chewing Tobacco, and Other Surreal Essays.
  • Del Taco. Uh, demeat...baleet...DELETE IT. 21655 20:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Inclusionism is for lazy fatwads. Bsharkey 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nuke it like a bad Windows installation. 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not the Internet. Kelvinc 04:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not just "view article ooh look an edit tab click replace content with KAKAKAKAKAKA click enter admin deletes/reverts it." 01:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Chuck Norris is a deletionist. Mynameinc 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A challenge to stubs: grow or die? Alexius08 12:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Both organizations are based on the assumption that their mission will keep going, but I'm the only one on these pages for years, and thus Inclusionism is dead 86legs 21 May 2021
  • Just because you added the sources doesn't make it notable. (source) Ilovemydoodle (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other users' opinions[edit]

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


Please see Association of Deletionist Wikipedians/Members. Feel free to add yourself. Membership is open to everyone and it does not oblige to be actively involved in the association life, even though it would be appreciated. All you have to do to become a member is copy and paste:
to your user page.

Code of Deletionism[edit]

  1. Thou shalt not knowingly create an article that 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 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. Even if it later wins a Nobel prize. 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 consensus admits that it 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 inferior articles, for they are the future.
  9. Thou shalt not be a WP:JERK 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.
  10. Thou shalt not act as a censor and delete articles based upon personal agendas or bias

Other languages than English[edit]

See also[edit]