 | This is not a Wikipedia article You are not currently on Wikipedia, but on another Wikimedia site calledMeta-wiki. This site does not have the same policies and guidelines as Wikipedia. SeeMeta:Policies and guidelines for Meta-wiki's policies before you comment on this page. |
Fromthe village pump
"Themean article size was about 1997 bytes, or roughly 332 words: theen:median article size was smaller, at roughly 980 bytes, or roughly 163 words." From:Wikipedia:Size_comparisons.
Meaning, thatthis is theaverage size article, and that something likethis article is about the halfway mark -- roughly half of all articles are smaller. It's a stub though-- which is my point. Those in thedeletionist camp (sorry I been out for a few) -- who tend to want to get rid of articles on the basis of their stubbiness alone might try looking at this logically. Meaning like it or not, much of that 300000 in Wikipedia, is made of stubs.-戴眩sv 19:16, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)
Exactly my point. Some would callwrite-through (as it was when I used it as an example) too small to be called an "article". -戴眩sv 19:51, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)
They are thewikifaithlessdeletionists, and they are many- I stand corrected. GTR, BBL戴眩sv 19:55, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)
I wouldn't call those stubs. It's "articles" likeJosh Kalis thatdeletionists have a problem with.A deletionist.
Well, considering that that anon user wasnt awack-- he did actually edit a few other unrelated articles, we can assume that its not totally nonsense. What the heck I did a google search and came up with some info-- I added a link, made it a redirect to a more general category-- Whaddyaknow? Theres noskateboarder category. So I added one. I addedTony Hawk-- who I think is related to the subject, though I cant be sure, and the micro-granularity problem of aJosh Kalis article was solved in just as much time as it would have taken to add it to VFD --A typical salvationist
Where's theFind a random short article button so deletionists and others can find and expand random stubs when bored?:) Has to beat looking in recent changes, which by definition are something someone just worked on and is therefore more likely than average to continue working on and expand.JamesDay 22:18, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
This page indicates a complete misunderstanding of why so-called "deletionists" delete. Much of the time it is because the article is *never* going to be a good Wikipedia article. There are aspects of the sum total of human knowledge that don't belong on Wikipedia, and deleting articles on them makes the Wikipedia better. And, while we're at it, people that write one ungrammatical phrase and call it a stub are also a massive pain. --136.186.1.117 02:45, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
There quite obviouslyis such a thing as deletionism. The opening paragraph had survived in a form close to its current version for about a year, apparently accepted by most people as the proper definition. There's even anAssociation of Deletionist Wikipedians now.Angela, why did you unilaterally decide thephilosophy is somehowfictional? --Eequor 13:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why deletionism? When thought about in a rational sense it is a rather stupid 'philosophy'. As Wikipedia is an 'Encyclopedia anyone can edit' surely anyone can add anything they deem relevant. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia surely everything should be included.
Is it just because you can delete articles you delete them. This seems particularly silly. If you think you could write a better article why not just edit the existing one? Because you think that you are above others, maybe you feel you are 'Administrators', but in truth you are not.
Some articles are written poorly because not all facts are gathered at the time of writing and may note be finished. And you delete these fledgling articles because they are not up to you're ridiculously high standards. Try writing the articles instead of deleting them, because it seems to me as if you are a spiteful bunch. If it happened to you you would surely become hypocritical.
Well that's the disturbing thing about deletionists, they don't even have any qualms about deleting their own work if it fails to comply with policy. Drawing a Harry Potter comparison, these people are like Dolores Umbridge. They feel that authority cannot be wrong and whatever the rules are they must be adhered to, no matter how ridiculous and self-defeating said rules are.
I completely understand how you feel about this and it's satisfying to see people who share my frustrations. --81.153.236.22610:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I prefer to do my own filtering and I beleive in freedom of choice. Whenever my ISP filters stuff for me I may not be able to receive certain emails because they contain a picture file that has an encoded pattern sequence identical to an unencoded virus. Also I think I’m old enough where my mother does not have to protect me from sport or hobby magazines that might contain sexy underwear ads! Besides when you throw theafterbirth in thebiohazard bin you can’t use it later forstem cell or otherbiological research. --Pragmatist17:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wow, this page gets little attention
Tell me, how many books are published on wikipedia deletionism? How many Google hits? How many people truly care? Down to earth truth, this is not an article that belongs in Wikipedia, it contains nothing to do with anything save the few sick-minded individuals who belive in it. Has this ever even been in the news? I belive for one, Deletionism needs to be deleted.
"this is not an article that belongs in Wikipedia". Wikipedia isthat way, this is Meta.Anomie14:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
This article is very pro-deletionist and rather than describe deletionism it seems to defend its sanctity. Any article in wiki should have NPOV. Deletionism/Inclusionism are two sides of a dualism in wikis such that if deletionism were to win out there would be no wiki left, and if inclusionism won out nothing would ever be deleted. It does not make sense to defend an extremist view here as if it were rational.70.113.3.513:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've removed this argument against because it is misguided:
The statement itself is actually true, but the use of it as an argument here betrays and promotes a significant misunderstanding of why people would delete things on Wikipedia in the first place. As Wikipedians (should) all know— "deletion" doesn't save any storage at all, thats why deletion can be undone. The idea that we're deleting things to save space is a very common misunderstanding on the Internet, and isn't one we should promote by listing the trivial cost of space as a counter argument. As it's a counter to a specific argument which isn't being made by anyone. Cheers --Gmaxwell15:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Has the fact thatJohn Anderson is used as the example here led to there being an unusually large number of John Andersons on the main wiki?Jlang (talk)11:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Seethis article which claims deletionists are among the most evil people in history! --131.123.123.13616:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Just adding this link herehttps://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20InclusionismKbog (talk)19:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
I came here hoping for some explanation of the history of deletionism and inclusionism on Wikipedia. I have some understanding that inclusionism used to be the predominant philosophy but that it's been shifting toward deletionism, but I don't know much beyond that. Can someone who knows more write about it? (If this isn't the place for it, I'd kindly appreciate a pointer to the more appropriate venue.)Sdkb (talk)22:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply