Association of Deletionist Wikipedians/Blurbs

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Wikipedia is not paper is a reason for keeping, not the reason. If that's the only argument used against deleting/redirecting an article, then we might as well keep every piece of junk that comes our way. Even if you limit it to verifiable information, there's a lot of things verifiable out there. The source text of the Bible? A collection of quotations? A dictionary definition? We're an encyclopedia, not a knowledge base. While there exist some radical deletionists (though this could be a compliment, I guess) like Geogre and RickK, most deletionists are nothing more than inclusionists who feel that the inclusionist ideology has been hijacked by people who have forgotten we're building an encyclopedia and not a compendium of data. Johnleemk 13:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • As I stated in my comment when I signed on, most things are not notable. This includes almost all primary to secondary schools, articles made on tiny midwestern towns by that bot that lend nothing but census data, and nonsense such as articles on individual anime characters. True, Wikipedia is not paper and shouldn't be as constrained as previous collections of knowledge, but it is still an encyclopedia first and foremost, not a repository for all things that someone somewhere considers to have the most tiny iota of significance. The Internet is a vast place, with a lot of space; if certain individuals think each episode of The Simpsons needs a page, by all means they should take that initiative elsewhere and let the rest of us try to write an encyclopedia in our own way, large and small. --Impaciente 18:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I continue to be amazed when I am arguing for an article deletion by the arguments the inclusionists give for keeping. I have found an irrational emotional response to be typical. Impaciente gives good advice when he asks for people to take their hobbyist articles elsewhere. Much of what is in Wikipedia now should be at a wikia instead. I, for example, use startrek.wikia.com a lot. (Dork) I am glad this content exists in an easy to use wiki format online, but God FORBID that 90% of it be on Wikipedia! The show in general and similar things can be on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia can't get cluttered with listcruft and fancruft and obscure things that do not matter to the general usership. Green hornet 03:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I dissent. If Wikias didn't suck, and weren't commercial, and didn't impose more redisigns to push ad space and social networking at the expense of article quality, THEN I would be a deletionist. But most alternatives are terribad. Remember how bad the Transformers Wikia is nowadays? Thank god for the TFWiki.net fork. Wikia is horrible and predatory and far too commercial for encyclopedic content. Until a non-profit alternative to Wikia is established, Inclusionism all the way. 207.38.143.151 22:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I just discovered the Wikipedia Article Rescue Squadron when someone added a link to an article right after I submitted an AfD nomination for the article. I find their argument that "[o]nly articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement" to be profoundly facile and misguided. The absolutism of the statement is obvious, but I think the real problem of poor quality and clutter is largely attributable to the failure to recognize the distinction between improvement, and timely improvement. I'm all for the latter in favor of deletion, but it's the lack of a time requirement that is the greatest weakness of that argument. —Danorton (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)