Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians/Arguments

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

These are quotes from some deletionists and mergists, as well as counterarguments from inclusionists. If you'd like to comment, please do so, but make it bold. Thanks.

The original source is at Association of Deletionist Wikipedians.

This page will be updated as often as possible.

Quotes and arguments[edit]

A deletionist sentiment: Wikipedia needs to be cleaned up! — Why not cleanup, verify and expand articles, rather than simply deleting them?
A deletionist sentiment: "Too many unnoteworthy or obscure articles impede finding the relevant stuff, like trying to find a needle in a haystack." — This notion is outdated, in part because the Wikipedia search engine was updated and improved in May 2010, in which "Search suggestions are now improved to get you to the page you are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".
Internet censorship ratings[1][2]
     No censorship      Some censorship      Country under surveillance from Reporters Without Borders      Most heavily censored nations
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
Brevity is the doom of Wikipedia.
Citation needed.
Brevity is ... stub.
It doesn't have a stub template.
  • 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
  • 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.
Anything notable tends to have problems. Problems are rather a natural trait of complicated things than an indicator of something bad as a whole.
  • 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.
  • 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) problem. 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.

References[edit]

  1. "Country Profiles", Research at the OpenNet Initiative web site, a collaborative partnership of the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto; the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University; and the SecDev Group, Ottawa
  2. Internet Enemies, Reporters Without Borders, Paris, March 2011