One personal rant deserves another.
The majority of deletionists I've seen (and I'm a card-carrying inclusionist myself, thank you :-) actually don't give a rat's ass about "destroying" articles -- they don't give a rat's ass about individual articles at all. They simply feel that certain articles harm "Wikipedia as a whole" (whatever they consider that to be).
Compare: suppose you're working on a beautiful castle, along with many others, and one person comes along and hangs a skinned, rotting pig from the east wall, because they happen to like how the pig looks -- irrespective of how it makes the castle look. Now, the question of whether that pig really should be part of the castle is what motivates deletionists -- and others disagreeing that the pig is really so bad looking, and that a comprehensive castle should include pigs too even if people don't like them.
That, in a nutshell, is how I see these debates. This page is effectively calling all the deletionists evil and petty. No doubt there are some, but there is such a thing as assuming good faith, and assuming ignorance rather than malice. You should consider the option that maybe, the deletionists aren't out to get you and your articles, but that they're just concerned about Wikipedia as a whole -- no matter how misguided you think they are.
Is "castle jumpers" an established term? No. You're pulling a neologism page out of your ass to vent personal criticism. Why does this belong as a separate page on Meta? If you want to rant, go do it on your home page, or use the Wikipedia:Village Pump if you want the rest of Wikipedia to see it. Don't pollute Meta with this skinned, rotting pig. >:-) 220.127.116.11 15:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)