Talk:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Please click here to leave a new message.

Add your thoughts below at #Blurbs.

RFC: Notability of free open source software[edit]

Wikipedia is currently missing a standard of notability for free open source software, which causes numerous deletions of articles about otherwise consecrated FOSS, with a large developer and user base. I wrote a FOSS notability proposal at en:Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability of free open source software and would welcome your comments. Thank you, Dandv 03:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link to the proposal has been wrong so do not wonder if nobody found it. I have fixed the link now, not a good history but also a lesson to us. Audriusa 17:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a battle[edit]

"This is a battle, a war, and the casualties could be your hearts and souls. Armies of 'academics' going forth, measuring poetry. NO! We won't have any of that here." --Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society Artemis84 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArticleAlley Needs Rescue[edit]

  • Need help. [1] needs rescue. wanted to put the rescue tag on myself, but thought I'd better wait. Thanks

Just wondering[edit]

Are you guys predominantly FOR or AGAINST the current implementation of CSD? --Kingoomieiii 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pure wiki deletion extension[edit]

Hi all, I just wanted to inform you of the completion of the pure wiki deletion extension. The demonstration website is here. I started a thread about this matter at Village Pump Proposal. Thank you, Tisane 05:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tired of deletions[edit]

Tired of deletions, I'm starting a campaign for an amendment on the notability rule.

Display our tag if you want : {{User Preservationists For Amendment}}

See details here. Jean-Francois Gariepy 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inclusionism in practice[edit]

The most important thing we can all do is stop by the Village Pump every few days — ALL the little sub-departments of it — and keep an eye on the bot-happy deletionists. This morning I read one comment that advocated "trimming" Wikipedia because some pages aren't frequented much and as such they were nothing but a place for potential vandalism. Seriously!

Another ongoing proposal is to construct a bot to reduce the resolution of ALREADY APPROVED "non-free" graphics to some arbitrary "low resolution" standard. Seriously!

We have absolutely got to remain vigilant to preserve Wikipedia from those who would have it become another World Book Encyclopedia.

Feel free to say hello on my talk page. 15:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please allow me to direct your attention to Inclupedia, a proposed project that seeks to solve the inclusionist/deletionist conflict via a (hopefully) mutually acceptable arrangement. Cheers, Tisane 21:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maddison Gabriel article needs help![edit]

Hi there fellow inclusionists! The Maddison Gabriel [2] article I created is being targeted by deletionists who want to destroy it! A little bit of help from fellow inclusionist would definitely be appreciated! Last year, those deletionists tried to destroy the Bryce Harper page I had created, saying he was "not notable". Yeah sure, He was the first overall pick in this year's MLB draft and just signed the biggest contract ever (9.9 million $) for a rookie position player with the Washington Nationals... Thanks for the Help on Maddison Gabriel [3] 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletionists / Inclusionists[edit]

I have read both this page and it's deletionist counterpart. I found the statement on the deletionist page that 'pages that are garbage should be deleted'. I agree with this. If something is utter nonsense then it should go. However I am increasingly finding that the deletionist school (which seems to make the majority of administrators) is undermining much of the work I and other editors are doing.

What's more I really can't see the logic in it. If I create a category that they consider not worthy of note' I really don't see how it infringes upon their activity, nor anyone elses use of the project.

This is really becoming an issue for me. I don't try to create categories etc which are not worthy of any note, yet often the deletion is down to an unsubstantiated idea they hold about how things should be organised.

I am seriously considering resigning over this. Seeing work destroyed because of someones prefernce of what should be included is disheartening. Is anyone else feeling the same. Time for a backlash? (Wiki (in several languages - mostly English) and Commons user - Mtaylor_848)

Resignation is absolutely the last thing that anyone who has a problem with deletionists should do because that will definitely help the deletionists. I don't know the specifics of your situation but I assume that some policy or guideline must have been invoked to justify the deletions to which you refer, whatever they are. If you do not agree with that, it seems to me that your logical course of action is to go to the talk page of the policy or guideline and ask for it to be modified so that it cannot be used in future to justify whatever sort of deletions have been done. The more people complain about a policy or guideline at the correct venue, the more likely it is to be changed. James500 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"the deletionist school (which seems to make the majority of administrators)": I think this is a crucial point. If there is a debate, or at least there are two different ways of thinking, the "referees" shouldn't be on one side of it: they should be neutral. On the contrary, administrators can openly write on their user's page statement exalting deletion, showing they like when pages are cancelled.

"Seeing work destroyed because of someones prefernce of what should be included is disheartening. Is anyone else feeling the same". Yes, I am. Page deletion is arbitrarily decided by administrators of the Wiki edition of that language, basing on whether they consider a topic as notable or not.

Yes, we could write on the discussion page of rules for deletion. However I saw that in my language that page is empty for "non-notability", and it seems to me that such motivation is general enough to justify any decision in most possible pages.--Borisba (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletionist at work on the Sydney Wikipedia Article[edit]

(removed text upon request). Mathonius 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please continue any further discussion about this topic on the appropriate talk page(s) on the local project. Thanks, Mathonius 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, absolutely. If someone here is sympathetic to the user whose comment was removed, I'd suggest that they advise the user as to the proper way to address Wikipedia problems. I looked briefly at the user's Wikipedia contributions, and I'd say this user needs help.Attacking individuals here for behavior on the projects is not appropriate, at all. --Abd 02:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original point of this thread was a simple and good question, "How do we best deal with deletionists?" I really don't know about the flap behind the Sydney Article and I really couldn't care. The fact that the thread was deleted by request from the person who was twice the deleter that led to this discussion being deleted would be very, very humorous, if ... if this question hadn't been deleted. I disagree with the admin who deleted it, for in my opinion that question is very central to the inclusionists/deletonists finding common ground and goes to the heart of the philosophy behind the association. For the record, I never called the said deleter a loser and those are the words of the admin, and not mine. Some people may come to this thread and wonder why so much is missing that they can't make sense of what this is all about. Honestly, I'm kind of confused myself. I hope it pulls them back to the central point of the original person's question, who posted, "What is the best way to respond?" Clearly, we can see that censorship leaves one disappointed and wanting for confusion. DobryDamour 06:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD proposal[edit]

I've proposed that AfDs should require a seconder. Please comment there. --Michael C Price 10:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process[edit]

There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

Please place responses regarding this matter here on this Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 06:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: There's also a discussion currently occurring regarding this topic at: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion - Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. Northamerica1000 14:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additions to an article on the discussion of the film 'Troy' and reliablity of sources.[edit]

Hello, I don't know if this is an iclusionist/exlusionist issue, I'm green about these subjects, but when I finally got round to seeing the epic film 'Troy' some time ago, I was sufficiently perturbed by the fact that it appeared to romantisize a Stockholm Syndrome type relationship that I wrote an aricle about it for the FWord. This is a woman's ezine, feminist in tone, that has an editorial board and does in fact have high editorial standards.

When I read the Wickipedia article on the film, I was a little perturbed at how uncritcial it was in tone, with very little of negative reviews mentioned in discussion, only an 'accolades' section.

I queried whether I could add some reference to the issues I mention above in the discussion, perhaps mentioning my article as an external source, but was told by an admininistrator that it didn't count as a 'reliable source'.

My additions to the plot summary, which included some violence against the female captive by the main male character were deleted. I argued against this, and put them back in, to be told words tot he effect that 'there wasn't room for every detail in the film to be included'. Half a sentence was left undeleted this time.

Another adminsistrator meanwhile said that as the ezine has an editorial board, it counts as a reliale source as the basis of a mention of the issues I had mentioned in the article. The other administrator said that he only regarded historical inaccuracies as relevant for discussion.

I am rather confused by this, and did want the sinister implications of romantisicisng this sort of relationship in a film to be mentioned as a matter of principle. I feel that my concerns are being ignored. The administrator who insisted my article was not a reliable source told me that it wasn't his problem. Other posters have expressed a wish to expand the crticism, but have seemingly not been able to do so.

True, this is only a commercialised, low brow epic film, but given the cast it was influential and I do think that as arguably it is offensive in that it encourages the romanticism of a relationship between potential rapist and victim and that this should be mentioned somewhere.

Could anybody advise me?

JessicaMH 14:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Box[edit]

There is a user-box for the inclusionist?-- 17:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia em Portugues[edit]

Estou solicitando esse espaço para possibilitar discussão entre Inclusionistas da Wikipedia Lusofona até termos outro espaço-- 23:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solicito atenção para a proposta de defesa prévia em votações para eliminação de artigos.-- 23:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relato a criação de espaço destinado ao debate voltado à formação de uma Associação dos Wikipedistas Inclusionistas semelhante àquela que existe na Wikipédia em inglês: aqui Raimundo57br -- 00:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Este espaço não é exclusivo de "inclusionistas", nem de qualquer outro grupo. Todos podem comentar aqui. Eu não me rotulo em nenhum dos dois grupos e estou escrevendo.” Teles (T @ L C S) 03:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Freedom of Association x Wikipedia:Canvassing[edit]

(I should clarify that this post was originally written in Portuguese and translated by google translator, which is why some parts may be difficult to understand)

Dear Comrades Inclusionists of Wiki-en.

Reported that on January 2, 2012 took an initiative to create an Association of Wikipedians Inclusionist of pt-wiki.

On the same day came on the Esplanade proposal to raise the test Wikipedia: Requests to the recommendation, the proposal is now about to enter vote

I object that this test is elevated to this high because I think it would prevent some Wikipedians dissatisfied with political campaigns wiki do to change these policies, which restrict the Freedom of Association of Wikipedians.

In this context I inquired as Wikipedia: Canvassing affects the acting of Association of Wikipedians Inclusionist.

Report that such a response is important for the discussion of the proposal described above.

You can respond in English that I read with Google Translator.

Texto original em português:

Liberdade de Associação x Wikipedia:Canvassing

Prezados Camaradas Inclusionists da Wiki-en.

Relato que em 2 de janeiro de 2012 tomei uma iniciativa tendente à criação de uma Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians of wiki-pt.

No dia mesmo dia surgiu na Esplanada proposta elevar o ensaio Wikipédia:Solicitação à recomendação, atualmente a proposta está prestes a entrar em votação]

Me oponho que aquele ensaio seja elevado a essa elevação pois entendo que ele impediria que wikipedistas insatisfeitos com alguma política wiki fizessem campanhas para alterar tais políticas, o que restringiria a Liberdade à Associação de Wikipedistas.

Nesse contexto indago como Wikipedia:Canvassing afeta a atuação da Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

Informo que tal resposta é importante para o debate da proposta acima descrita.

Podem responder em inglês que eu leio com o Google Translator.

Raimundo57br da wiki-pt I have no record here-- 17:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New essay about merging and keeping small articles[edit]

I've written a new Wikipedia essay called Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique, which favors merging several small articles that would have been otherwise deleted. It's based on the exclusionist philosophy to erase superfluous content but keep what is verifiable. I think it's related to the issues going around recently about the Articles for Deletion discussion processes (such the need for Checks and Balances stated above and the recent deletion of the Rescue template) since it gives new arguments to some common discussions. Any contribution to review and give comment about this essay is welcome. Diego Moya 17:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback requested on structural solutions to Deletionist/Inclusionist concerns[edit]

I recently posted a comment to WP:VPP describing how hard it is for content-creators to function in a community with unpredictable inclusion criteria.

The point of my post was never for me to just whine-- the point was to find structural solutions. The inclusionist/deletionist ("quality-control") fight is over--- and the deletionists have onw.

I know the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians understands the problems-- Quality Control causes Editor Attition.

I want to find a real solution, and that's only possible if lots and lots of people are involved. I'm no leader, I've no expert in changing policies. I need help.

Would you look over Wikipedia:Deletions and Openness and see what you think? --09:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Swedish-language Wikipedia[edit]

Is any here interested in the Swedish-language Wikipedia, and inclutionist work on it? J 1982 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peripherally so, I speak Swedish though not as my mother tongue and occasionally edit there. — Robertgreer (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice. J 1982 (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

en:Template:Join inclusionists[edit]

Your invitation template has been nominated for deletion on -- 10:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Useful bug for getting article revisions[edit]

Bug 38642 - Create extension to optionally send users copies of pages on their watchlists that are deleted Leucosticte (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Shouldn't the arguments be moved to "Inclusionism". J 1982 (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{Rescue} template[edit]

The {Rescue} template referenced in the caption of this page does not seem to exist. The closest that I can find is the {rescue list} template, which is intended to be embedded within Articles for Deletion discussions. Am I missing something? Thanks, DASonnenfeld (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basic wiki problem, here, nobody paying attention, so nobody responds and nobody does anything. The template has been deleted on Wikipedia. The last deletion discussion is at [4]. A brilliant demonstration of Wikipedia insanity, i.e., endless argument over what is trivial, with users savaging each other and calling for blocks, while a camel is being swallowed. Meanwhile, actual article rescue is, to that extent, neglected, and the deletionists aren't getting anything that is actually problematic deleted (the template was acknowledged to be harmless, and was protected into that state). There are some brilliant remarks there, and some face-palm fun. I will look at the template reference and either replace it with something better or remove it. --Abd (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

luri language lrc in iran[edit]


I want to create a luri language wikipedia lrc

how can do faster to eligible lrc luri? I need your help please help me lrc lori (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{subst:Tfdnotice|In popular culture}} Trackinfo (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An inclusionist Wikipedia does not mean we want it to become ubiquitous[edit]

In fact I see lots of interest for not having Wikipedia being the only definitive source to search for an information... as long as the missng information can be found easily somewhere else.

If Wikipedia became the number one site in all searches of web engines, becoming the number one site on the web, the risk is effectively that someone will want to control it and corrupt it to take it as his advantage against others.

So I think it is a good thing that we can use Wikipedia only as an introduction text leading to enough other competing sources (thanks to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia), provided that Wikipedia and its community does not enforce too much its condition of "notoriety". Wikipedia should still be a place for minorities and for opinions and point of views of these minorities, even if they are highly contested (this does not mean that Wikipedia must give equal space for all point of views, so the contents should still be balanced in favor of opinions of the majority, and opinions of the minorities will need to be improved to superior quality and to the most relevant points.

So I like seeing that Wikiepdia is present in most searches on the web, and that you can also still choose your web search engine (Google or Bing), all of them giving high rating and placements of Wikipedia, where it is relevant and is an excellent entry point for finding other contents.

So let's keep Wikipedia high in search engine results and popularity, but not allow it to become the number one. Instead Wikipedia should become a model for other websites to improve their contents and categorize it with relevant links similar to Wikipedia (or Commons and Wikidata).

The recent introduction of Wikidata is an excellent thing: it effectively allows all Wikipedia editions (as well as Commons, and soon other Wikiemdia project) to imprve their cohesion, and content classifications, with better collective review in all languages, by improving the exchange of information and failitating the work of contributors.

Other new tools are also become more and more helpful:

  • Commons since long now to share medias (it has also helped unifying the categorization systems across wikis, long before Wikidata)
  • Central Notifications
  • the Mobile versions (still to improve, possibly with applications for mobile OSes to solve problems caused by defective mobile web browsers).
  • SUL (Single User Login)
  • Deprecation of language interwikis and use of Wikidata instead.
  • VisualEditor for newcomers.
  • The powerful LUA modules that can help centralize the info and facilitate content maintenance works.
  • The translate interface to deprecate many templates and facilitate the contribution work of non-technical translators
  • Soon there wll be shared templates (I hope), which should be natively multilingual, to generate infoboxes and navigation boxes.

All these allow much better integration of all Wikimedia sites, in all languages. But improving the interaction between contributors, this can only bring highly quality everywhere in all projects simultaneously. This means that Wikipedia will remain highly ranked, buit that also all other projects (including in other languages, and including for minority languages) will be pushed up to rank better in searches.

We will then see not only one Wikipedia, but we will also see other editions that will also become more easily navigatable for non-speakers of their local language. We'll see more opinions, more links.

The web search engines will also learn from Wikipedia to better index other languages. New linguistic projects will become viable because Wikipedia will become a serious corpus. It will reflect the language of the world, and will also help preserving minority languages and cultures, with an improved exposure to the rest of the world.

So let's build a Wikipedia that will not void all efforts elsewhere on the web, but that will help the web structure itself using Wikipedia as a model. Let's be smart also with search engine and facilitate also their competition: Wikipedia can be a solid starter for any competitive search crawler. Except that these crawlers won't start just by focusing only on the "visible" web, promoted by those that can buy placements on some famous search engine, but by focusing on contents that have received collective attention by a large community of Wikimedians (also interested in other websites and in interests in their "disconnected" real life).

What should be the good rank of popularity of Wikimedia sites (collectively, not just Wikipedia)? It should be number 3, after two large competitors (Google and Microsoft sites), but it should also be immediately followed by other competitors (in the commercial sector like Facebook, but also in the public sector such as governments, universities, public libraries...).

Web search engines should also avoid multiplying the placements for the various sites created by large competitors in order to fill all top positions, this should be true as well with Wikimedia: a single entry point (e.g. on Wikimedia) can become a hub to all other Wikimedia projects when looking for a topic. For this, we must continue the integration of Wikimedia projects so that we will no longer speak about Wikipedia only (in a single edition), but about Wikimedia as a whole in all linguistic editions (just like we don't use Facebook or Google as if they were multiple sites).

We still have works to do: - we need an open "Wikitube" or "Dailymedia" (instead of Youtube or DailyMotion) to support social videos. - we need a social platform (let's better integrate Wikia, and let's improve our communications in talk pages hosted on various wikis. - we need to allow easier migration of contents from one wiki to another where it is better relevant and will be more easily categorized and found (Wikipedia projects are not made to host everything). - we need easier translation systems, with better integration across WMF sites. - we probably need also to support other types of projects than wikis, ntoably for blogs and diaries, and probably wikinews, wikibooks, wikisource (or we could develop new wiki extensions for them, possibly using some dedicated databases). - we need better cooperation and integration with other open projects on the web (sich as OpenStreetMap and OpenData providers). - we need an integrated platform for the creation of medias (the VisualEditor is great for mostly textual contents, but we also need tools to create graphics, timelines, charts, tables, drawing diagrams, assembling images, filtering photos, assembling videos, adding subtitles/captions on them, annotate them... - sometime we'll need an independant but still open platform to support collective verification of commercial offers and compare them (compare sites are dumb, and very doubtful). - something must be done about competing Facebook (or LinkedIn) by our own social network. We will need to support multiple online identities (real identities for pages on Facebook is a essentially a problem for physical people, when you don't know who is behind any commercial page; Facebook really "stinks" as it does not protect their privacy at all, and this is a major threat against the presence of minorities on the web).

Thanks. verdy_p (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"Litera scripta manet" would have been another suitable motto. Leucosticte (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does it mean? J 1982 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The written word endures. -- 23:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I had to pick a new one (as a Latin translator myself), I'd prefer to use a plural imperative form of a verb holding a stronger connotation of preserving, sustaining, or upholding; as well as an Accusative term meaning Written/recorded Knowledge; "Scriptum Scientiam Sustenite" (Uphold Written Knowledge) would be one form. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thought you'd be interested[edit]

Some of us out there support y'all!! Go Inclusionist Wikipedians! HOORAH!

Thanks for the support. Us inclusionists have got to stick together! 15:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Where the WMF becomes naturally inclusionist[edit]

Wikiversity's original goals included "learning by doing," and en.wikiversity, in particular, dropped notability standards, allows -- with appropriate caution -- original research, and tolerates stubs for long periods of time. While actual behavior has gone back and forth at various times, a long-term consensus has developed that rarely deletes material. Instead, it organizes it. Wikiversity allows subpages in mainspace. Stubs in mainspace may be pushed into subspace for an overall more general resource. Subpages may contain alternate views and opinions, and discussion of topics is certainly allowed, because that is part of process that implements "learning by doing."

Even nonsense can be an exercise in writing nonsense (which is educational, or at least brillig), and marginal pages are regularly and routinely moved to user space, now, instead of being deleted. Apparently useless junk (useless even for the education of the author) may have a speedy deletion tag put on it, and normally is simply deleted without fuss. Something considered useless but with some possibility of being made into something useful may be subject to proposed deletion, which allows for a three-month delay. If nobody has objected by removing the tag, the page is deleted, again without fuss.

Discussed deletions, then, are rare, often the result of a Wikipedian showing up and not knowing how Wikiversity handles cleanup. I.e., often a speedy deletion tag could be used, or a page can be moved to user space by any ordinary user. Requests for deletion are then reserved for more difficult cases, perhaps involving some contested claim of policy violation.

Anything that could be a Wikipedia article, if not acceptable for Wikipedia, and not illegal or fattening a general violation of WMF policy, can certainly be hosted on Wikiversity, properly framed. (Standards for deletion there still prohibit "Wikipedia articles," but that has to do with top-level mainspace. There have even been educational projects that created many Wikipedia articles, first on Wikiversity, then transwiki'd to Wikipedia.)

An encyclopedia is the "sum of human knowledge," and, clearly, "sum" does not mean everything added together, it means "summary." The details of human knowledge can be found in "educational materials," which are not limited in scope to "summary." Neutrality on Wikiversity is handled inclusively, as it is in academia, not exclusively as is required by the editorial policy of an encyclopedia. --Abd (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead links[edit]

FYI, the two links in the "Add the '''{{Rescue}}''' template to any article at AfD worth saving" text no longer work. -- 23:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See above in [5]. The template was deleted and the link to Afd was actually to mainspace, it did not have the Wikipedia namespace prefix. It only worked because there was a mainspace redirect to Articles for deletion, and that was deleted also. It looks to me like there is no longer a template that can be added to AfD discussions or to article talk pages. This is not really a deletionist/inclusionist issue, but a procedural one. The Wikipedia:WP:Article Rescue Squadron looks a bit moribund to me, compared to its former activity. That can happen to wikiprojects, over time.
I fixed the caption. --Abd (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletionists triumphant[edit]

My how the inclusionists have failed. You can't even create an article anymore without seeing all kinds of nasty warnings. Now it's just a bunch of jerks who like to swat down the ball every time you take a shot. Rules that were created to avoid conflict on contentious articles are being applied to everything, so that you can't even add content about Pokémon without having references. The fun is gone. I just joined this association because I like lost causes. Sole Flounder (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletionism seems to be in vogue these days. Sad. They'd probably delete the entire Wikimedia Foundation if they had their way. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inclusionism is not a lost cause, though the deletionists seem to be getting their way far too often at the moment, mainly because they are more likely to be active at deletion related venues such as XfD and the talk pages of deletion related policies and guidelines (such as the deletion policy, the criteria for speedy deletion, WP:PROD, the notability guidelines, and WP:NOT) and to a lesser extent at deletion related RfCs and other discussions at the village pump and elsewhere. In other words they are a 'vocal minority'. If inclusionists want to achieve better results, they need to become more active at these venues, and especially at the talk pages of deletion related policies and guidelines, many of which have a severe lack of participation. Defeatist comments to the effect that the deletionists have won are not helpful because they can lower morale and possibly even create a self fulfilling prophecy. The most important thing to do is to not give up hope, and not get into the mindset that "there is nothing I can do personally", because there always is something you can do, and it is very important that you do it. I personally think that it is only a matter of time before deletionism suffers a serious reversal of fortunes. I think that sooner or later there will be a massive backlash against it, because it is clearly a serious detriment to the project. James500 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi and sorry I didn't see your comments until now. I checked for a few days after I posted and then thought nobody was reading.
I didn't mean to sound defeatist. I just feel kind of defeated. I create articles, even with references, and they are deleted so fast they have no time to grow or come into their own. The deletionists are smug and they win almost every time. Even this Association of Inclusionists seems kind of moribund. Wikipedia was such a lively place ten years ago. Now it seems like a place where article writers come to be discouraged. Sole Flounder (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mitar on artificial scarcity[edit]

We could create special tags instead deletion or a warning at the top of the article:

"Warning: article has a small readerbase and might lack in quality. Be extra wary of potential untruths and errors in the article."

Done. Wikipedia grows, Wikipedia is happy, and new editors do not get frustrated. So simple.

[Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

Open Site[edit]

w:Open Site somehow seems to have survived years of deletionism, despite being about a defunct website and having no good references. Interesting! Sole Flounder (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need help rescuing an article[edit]

Is there any space for improvements for this Wikipedia page: ? Because this short but valuable bit of information is heading into the good night.

Time limit for {{Empty section}} and {{Expand section}}[edit]

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, I have now suggested that {{Empty section}} (along with the preceding header) and {{Expand section}} should be removed after a certain time limit, mainly because they don't seem to actually result in expanded sections in the long term. Please share your thoughts there:

Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reddit post "MMW: The Wikipedia project is going to be ruined in the long term and degrade into a Britannica 2.0"[edit]

I did made a post documenting my experiences with churlish deletionist hubris a while ago, but I neglected to inform all of you about this here.

Besides that, I did actually reached out to Boing Boing journalist Andrea James about my experiences. What happened next? She expressed interest on my case and she told me that she will do a number of hit pieces in the future in our email chat.

Yes, churlish deletionists like the ones who bullied me may think that a vast majority of people will not care about obscure and "weird" subjects like "Cyber Anakin" (subject of my first WP article which is now thrown down the sewers by deletionists), but if they indeed do not care as they claimed, the Reddit post should have a total of 0 votes or negative scores right? Instead it went over 60 points/upvotes and I recalled that it made the front page of the concerning subreddit for a few days at least.

The only ways to turn the tide and reverse the deletrious effects of the churlish nutjobs is to either have Andrea James to make good of her words to publish the hit pieces, or set up a subreddit to track all AfD discussions and assist any efforts to scrutinize them.

For the latter I have made the /r/wikipediaafdwatch, but the only problem is that one of the IFTTT-Wikipedia triggers seems to be down.

Is this the beginning of the end of churlish deletionism when the reddit post is submitted and Andrea James is informed? You decide.

Bugmenot123123123 (talk)

A guarantee for translations[edit]

Hello. I have just enrolled into Wikipedia and joined the inclusionist wikipedians after seing this: a page a colleague of mine and I translated from French and English into Italian was deleted. I think that there should be clear rules to protect translations: if only parts from other languages are reported (I mean: nothing is added), the possible deletion should be motivated (not just by using a code), and clear indications of the required amendments to make the page publishable should be given. In our case the page deletion was felt as particularly unfair because our aim was to offer to Italian-speakers who can't read French information on that topic that could be as close to unbiased as possible, and we even dropped some parts that seemed to us too promotional, but the reason for deletion was precisely "either promotional or lacking notability". In particular, there is a point that is explicitely stated by the Italian Wiki that I find as very questionable. Here: they write, among other things: "the presence on a Wikipedia edition in another language doesn't imply notability: in fact, every Wikipedia edition has chosen its own criteria". I find it at odd with what is written on top of any Wikipedia Italian page now: «The difference among people is only in their higher or lower access to knowledge». Maybe also other Wikipedia users have faced similar problems in translations from and to other languages. However, is it possible to try to make rules more consistent across languages, so that (good enough) translations may be made somehow "safe", basically free from deletion risk?

--Borisba (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone find the service provided by[edit]

I started a few threads about it over at Wikipedia but they kept removing my threads. Anyway, scope it out and let me know what you think. I want to create a "Deletionpedia plus" and eventually a "Wikipedia plus" where no information will ever be lost. Now I'm not talking about a Wikinfo, mind you! Wikinfo failed because it had a flawed approach. 20:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

better overview of articles for deletion[edit]

Is there a page that shows all the current articles for deletion?Egaoblai (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there anyone from zh wiki can edit the intro of the template, it doesnt sound good, more like a translation of robot.-宋世怡 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This year's ArbCom elections are the first I'm qualified to vote in. Yay! But I have no idea who to support. I suppose I would like to support inclusionism, but I don't know how, or even if I should. Any advice? Benjaminikuta (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal for notability of open source software.[edit]

One threshold of "success" in the Free and Open Source Software world is whether or not software is included in major Linux distros. Perhaps Wikipedia could use this as a criteria.


I am a new editor and have started participating in AfD. I am not a deletionist, but try to judge each article on its merit. I like the idea of inclusionism. I gave my opinion to delete 2 articles today because I felt they did not meet notability requirements. This wasn't a quick opinion, I did a good deal of research first. Personally, I would have liked to keep them.

So I have a couple of questions. Notability is still the policy of Wikipedia. What other policy arguments can an inclusionist use? And how do you repair an article enough to meet the standards? One article was, to me, borderline, but the main source was unfindable. I feel like deleting the other (a BLP) was removing controversial information from Wikipedia, but I could see no way to add information to it. I did comment that the information he writes about should at least be added to another article.

Thanks, Aurornisxui (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Day after day it happens to me that when searching for something, I get to a redirect and than have to "view history" or even worse, I find the page that was very useful to me has been deleted. Articles are being massively deleted, articles that exist in four or five other languages or articles that were created from redlinks in the templates. It is so frustrating. It is done mostly from deletionists who are also admins, so they can view all articles, also the deleted ones and have true access to all human knowledge, while the rest of us are left with this downgraded version. It is frustrating that you cannot read or edit encyclopedic content if you are interesting in minority non-mainstream topics. It is really demotivating and I see no future improvement with the current trends and applications of policies. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have the Deletionists won the war?[edit]

I don't see much activity here, but the deletionists certainly have been busy these past few years, and seem to have a tight-knit cabal of article snippers, cutting things down a bit by bit, rather systematically. They have huge lists of articles that they set their targets on, categorically (as existing articles tend to already be nicely categorized), and will first pick the article apart, removing any content which they cannot find adequate citations for until the article is but a stub. Next will come the AfD, and if you're lucky, the remaining bits of info may get merged as a paragraph in another article... but don't get too comfortable, as that article could be next on the chopping block, as notability guidelines grow ever strict, and "reliable sources" grow thin.

What recourse do we have left? Why have things come to this, and is there no slowing it down? Where are all the Inclusionists? Why don't we have more camaraderie? I don't want to go down in defeat... --Thoric (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder... LibreOffice spun off from OpenOffice after there were some disagreements within the staff. I know Wikipedia is a different beast, but I'm wondering if we shouldn't build an alternative to Wikipedia, something founded on the principles of inclusionism? Probably wishful thinking, but hey, you never know... -- (Desdenova on Wikipedia) 00:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inclusion of other projects[edit]

Shouldn't this be the Association of Inclusionist Wikimedians? Other projects have inclusionists, too. AnotherEditor144 t - c 12:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, we should include inclusionists. Supertrinko (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confusing phrasing[edit]

Wow. I had no idea this existed! Just came across it now and love the concept. I always hated the trigger-happy mentality of some Wikipedians. I've added the membership code to my user page.

I have to say I was a bit confused though about the insignas, as all three seem to be awarded for "engaging in an elevated number of deletion process"?!?!?

That got me wondering if I had misunderstood what this was about, but then I saw the "Arguments against deletion" section which confirmed my initial interpretation.

So now I'm thinking maybe those insignas are for people who argue *against* an elevated number of deletions? If so, the phrasing really needs to be fixed, because as it stands it essentially says the opposite! -- 00:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC) (Desdenova on Wikipedia)Reply[reply]

reward board request added[edit]

fyi: regards ExoQuest (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]