Talk:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians/Archive 1

Please Help, my article is being attacked by a deletionist

Someone is trying to delete an article I wrote, can someone please tell what I can do so it doesn't get deleted? I don't know if this is the place to post this question or not, but the person doing this to me seems like the are just hell bent on getting articles deleted. I really appreciate any help.

The article has been set for "speedy deletion"... please help me

The article in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Pierce

My talk page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JimmySmitts

Thanks!!!

My wikipedia name is JimmySmitts 08:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Something this group should be aware of

One of your group members (Itake) has nominated the Wikipedia page "Christian fascism" for deletion. This doesn't seem to me to be a terribly "inclusionist" action. By some odd coincidence, Itake has several references to Christianity and religion on his/her Wikipedia user page. I do not think that these facts are unconnected.

Suggestion

I would like to suggest the use of delectation proposals as last resort, after the user is given suggestions to improve the article and doesn’t comply with those recommendations during a reasonable period of time.

Greater definition is needed

I cannot tell where you stand on any issues and therefore, cannot determine whether or not to align myself with your association.

A beginning is made with:

"Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Thus, Wikipedia has no size limits, can include links, can be more timely, etc. It also means that the style and length of writing appropriate for paper is not necessarily appropriate here."

You do not state where you stand on these issues except in your agreement with them. While the style and length of writing appropriate for paper is not necessarily appropriate, this does not mean that the style and length of paper-appropriate writing is or is not necessarily desired or warranted.

For instance, do you feel, as an inclusionist, that Wikipedia should include text that has no grammatical order, without punctuation or capitalization? Do you feel that the inclusion of typos is justified?

However you feel about any isues, feel free to state it. That way people will have a better understanding of what your group stands for.

Ideally, I believe that inclusion is good, in moderation. Likewise, exclusion is also good in moderation, and therefore, the key is to find a level at which the best interest of Wikipedia is served the best. With that in mind, stating what level of inclusion you feel Wikipedia should have will help others to determine what level they want in relation to your ideal.

In my opinion the whole votes for deletion process is absurdly reactionary and sensationalistic. From what I've seen, the dominant en: clique is so entrenched and self-affirming that real objective discussion is impossible. Discussions don't even have a chance to deteriorate into shallowminded factionalism; they begin that way and never improve.

Inclusionism isn't concerned with preserving absolutely everything. The intent is to preserve things until their opponents provide an overwhelming argument for their removal. In effect, inclusionism attempts to maintain presumption of innocence within Wikipedia, placing the burden of proof onto the plaintiffs where it belongs. By contrast, deletionism is a throwback to Napoleonic and Roman law, and should be opposed whenever possible. Without strong guarantees of fairness, the opinions of people who actually put work into an article should outweigh their opponents', else voting is reduced to a simple popularity contest. --Eequor 04:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, the burden of proof belongs to whoever wrote the article. If they don't state clearly in the article why the subject is notable, then either they defend it on VfD or off it goes. Someone who really cares and knows enough about the subject can recreate it later with more information. Johnleemk 14:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's the usual deletionist argument, yes. Inclusionists, on the other hand, tend to believe that since the goal is to have Wikipedia be informative, deleting information from it should never be done without a very good reason. If someone is unable to make a case against keeping an article, it should remain. Factitious 20:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Further, that statement assumes the answer to questions which inclusionists don't take for granted.

1. What is notable? Inclusionists tend to take a much broader view of what is notable in an online encyclopedia. According to many, for example, a description of every Simpsons episode ever created is notable.
2. How should we determine notability? Inclusions tend to believe that notability is not something that should be voted on. Rather, if a small number of people feel that something is notable, then it probably is. Many inclusionists feel especially strongly that notability should not be determined on an article by article basis, because that leads to a situation where the majority can censor viewpoints it doesn't approve of.
3. What should we do when we're not sure? This is the question which you most directly answered. But your answer assumes that the choice is between keeping and deleting. This just isn't the case. Even without any changes to the Mediawiki code, articles can be moved to the talk page instead of being deleted. Then, when someone who really cares and knows enough about the subject comes along, she can build on the work of the previous authors and then move the information back to the article space.

Anthony DiPierro 13:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You make some good points, Anthony, but I wouldn't join a crusade over them. I totally agree that "notability" should not be determined article by article (not least because the "votes" are not communitywide but only for those who take an interest at any time, and once closed, cannot be easily rekindled -- I note for instance that an artscene page was deleted, even though the vote clearly was to keep it, with the prodeleters claiming that all those in favour were sockpuppets! This is a place where just anybody can rock up and vote, so what do you expect? If you allow decisions to be entirely arbitrary, you can't bitch about an arbitrary result. Had I been here when that happened I would certainly have protested it but now, it seems pointless rehashing it), but do you believe that there should be a stated standard (suitably low) or "anything goes"? That's not at all clear from what you say. In my shortish time here I've certainly found that there is a, erm, what can you call it, community within the community that has a code of its own (in which "non-notable" means "something I personally don't want included" and "POV" means "a view I do not like"). But I don't think everything can profitably be included. We differ, for instance, on the Plebisite Project, although now I've seen a few more votes and how they work, I'm inclined to agree that it was all too hasty. The suggestion of keeping the content for reworking seems a good one. Would you agree that no one who had voted either way on it should rework it though? Otherwise, you get a guy who writes up, say, his website, it's deleted and shifted and he just rewrites it a little and there you go again. You're going to end up with votes for inclusion that are the mirror image of votes for deletion.210.84.240.84 10:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Newbie here. I hope this doesn't come across as being overly bias, seeing as how I was the user who submitted the plebisite project, however I can't really see any reason why the policy shouldn't be simply moving the questionable content into the talk page. I think that there should be a process for speedy deletion, but the mandate of that process should be very limited to obviously profane or criminal subject matter. Thoughts? Oldsoul 03:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that if any user chose to put true information on a talk page (just not provably true information), that talk page could not be subsequently deleted. Anthony DiPierro 14:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New Members

I noticed that not very much was happening with this association, so I went around my dorm recruiting people to the inclusionist cause. Three of them have already joined! I suppose we should have elections soon, now that we're past five members. Factitious 06:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wonderful! Welcome, y'all! --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 10:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Honorary Membership?

I notice there are a number of honorary members. How did they get to be such? How can others become honorary members? Should we have such a status? Maybe we should contact those individuals and invite them to become real members.

Putting a notice on their user talk pages inviting them to become full members sounds like a great idea. Let's go for it! Factitious 03:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It appears that the honorary members were people who listed themselves on the Inclusionism page, but had not actively listed themselves here. I invited them all via their talk pages. Posiduck 17:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Functions for AIW

Since we are the front line of defense against rampant deltionism, we should coordinate Inclusionist efforts in some formal way. I propose we begin by trying to work harder at having inclusionist viewpoints represented on VfD. I made a suggestion as to how we can do that at the VfD Talk Page Posiduck 20:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've started a list of votes that could use some AIW attention. If you see any VfD pages that would benefit from the involvement of some more of us, please add them to that list. The autovoting proposal, though interesting, probably won't be workable. Factitious 03:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It'd probably be a good idea to mention the vote count at the time of listing. Some of those pages have virtually no chance of being kept, and voting is almost a waste of time. At that point I just make sure the VFD message is {{vfd}} (instead of {{subst:vfd}}) and import them into McFly. Once the deletionists have realized the error of their ways we can then work on readding these inappropriately deleted articles. Anthony DiPierro 13:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Greetings and salutations

I recieved an offer to join this club [1]. I might like to, but while I agree with the stated goals:

1. Find and fix all stubs
2. Outpace rampant deletionism

I am not personally much good at producing bulk content on article pages. Also, I would like to see a Goal or stated purpose of commiting to voting against deletionism consistantly, and voting consistantly on important policy matters. The list of places to vote is something I see as essential here. Sam [Spade] 19:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The goal you described seems to be a sub-goal of goal 2 (outpacing deletionism), we could add a third goal, along the lines of "supporting inclusionist causes and policies" which, at the very least, would be a more positive goal than the current second goal. I think that is is crucial that we keep the first goal explicit, because we are not, as many deletionists would claim, in favor of Wikipedia containing crap articles; we are in favor of the wiki process working on substandard articles to improve them, and thus, we (as an organization) ought to be on the front lines of finding and fixing stubs. I'll add that goal to our list now. Posiduck 20:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK but if I joined, would I be considered remiss if I didn't help much in fleshing out stubs? I mainly improve sentances, NPOV, reformatt, and such like that, (as well as loads of debating in talk pages ;) so would I be an acceptable member if I didn't do much in the way of improving stubs? I do a little bit, buts its really not my area. Sam [Spade] 21:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are considered a member in good standing as long as you list your name on the membership roll. I personally, consider someone a valuable member as long as they honor the ideals of the organization. Posiduck 00:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Voting Period Extention/Voting Discussion

Due to the low voter turnout, I propose that we extend voting for a week, but allow Factitious to serve as Interim General Secretary in the mean time. Posiduck 20:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. This probably should have been brought up on the talk page, though. Factitious 02:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think voting should be put off indefinitely in favor of a lengthy period of debate regarding candidates policy positions, and about the goals of this organization in general. I would be open however to a short-term, "emergency" co-ordinator, if someone see's this as especially necessary. Long term positions should merit a less hasty election, and more discussion. Sam [Spade] 14:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am proud of our mobilization

I think this voter mobilization is going well; some votes that looked like we wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell are looking about even in terms of votes. Let's keep it up, guys. Now we just need to focus on recruitment. Posiduck 03:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vote alerts

I think the sections on our page dealing with people nominated for adminship should be removed, as it's open to mean-spirited abuse. The admin process is dominated by politics and emotion too much already. The only real consequence it can have is hurt feelings and argument. I've posted about this on the ADW talk page as well. Factitious 21:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Policy opinions

Factitious

People have asked that the candidates for General Secretary discuss their positions on issues. Here are mine:

• I consider schools to be notable. Nearly every school has a major effect on the lives of thousands of people, and every school has plenty of information that could be included in an encyclopedia article. No general notability criteria I know of make a reasonable case for excluding schools.
• I think that stubs should be expanded, not deleted. Deleting an article for being short runs counter to the idea of the Wiki process.
• There are some things that I think do not belong in Wikipedia, and should be deleted. These include copyright violations, gibberish, and patent nonsense. Some vanity articles should also be deleted, but only with very thorough consideration. It's common for a serious article on an obscure but encyclopedic person to be misinterpreted as a vanity page.
• VfD serves a necessary role for Wikipedia. However, there are currently people who vote on it as though the default should be to delete, and an article must prove it should stay to stay. This attempt to shift the burden of proof should be opposed whenever possible. If a strong case cannot be made for deletion, deletion is simply not warranted.
• Though the phrase is somewhat overused, I strongly believe that "Wikipedia is not paper" has important implications for inclusion. If someone can translate that into Latin, it would make a fine motto for us.
  • Literally, "Wikipedia charta non est" or "Wikipedia papyrius non est"... but it might be a better translation to say "Wikipedia liber non est" ("Wikipedia is not a book"). Or, to put it a bit more poetically, "Wikipedia libellum transcendet" (libellum is the dimuitive form of liber (book) and trancendet means "it trancends" (or surpasses, or exceeds)). --L33tminion 06:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I feel that the General Secretary position should be very minimal. He shouldn't be able to tell other AIW members what to do, but should simply serve as a stabilizing voice for the association, and perhaps help handle disputes within it, if they arise.

Factitious 21:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Posiduck

Same as Factitious, with two notable exceptions. 1) The motto should be Greek, not Latin and 2) Vanity pages about people/places/things which can be converted to factual NPOV articles, ought not be deleted. Posiduck 22:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anthony

I've been nominated and I accept so I'll add a position summary here. I certainly think we should have an article in Wikipedia for every school (add in every church, fire house, teacher, political office holder, and Simpsons episode). I don't think it's enough to just say that schools are inherently "notable", though, because the definition of "notable" varies too much. That's why I didn't sign the statement on the main page saying all schools were inherently notable.

I think that nearly any stub which has facts in it which are not obvious from the title should be kept or redirected. The only exception I'd make is for stubs which are obviously subarticles and are extremely small and consist of no creative content (and therefore are PD). In this rare case I think it is better to merge with the parent article and delete, because keeping the redirect would discourage creation of a new article.

I agree that copyright violations, gibberish, and patent nonsense should be deleted. I'd add in any articles about words, as these are better suited for wiktionary. But it's OK for these articles to be redirected, for instance we might redirect "beautiful" to "beauty". Anything which can't be verified by a respectible source should be removed from Wikipedia. If, after removing all facts which can't be verified, nothing is left, then I support deletion if the original facts seem likely to be false and moving to the talk page if the facts seem likely to be true, but just can't be verified. "Vanity" is a silly term, and part of the problem is some Wikipedians use it to mean "autobiographical" and some use it to mean "worthless". In the case of autobiographical, sometimes the work can be done to clean things up. If no one is willing to do this immediately, moving to the talk page, a user page, or a user subpage until things can be cleaned up is appropriate. I'd only outright delete an autobiography (as opposed to moving it) if it were autobiographical and seemingly untrue. As for "a serious article on an obscure but encyclopedic person to be misinterpreted as a vanity page", I have several examples of this on my user talk page. en:Sidney Morgenbesser was probably the most famous person I know of whose article was called "vanity" (the original article turned out to actually be a copyvio from "Vanity Fair" magazine), others include en:Josh Cooper, en:Richard Haynes, and en:Pei-Yuan Wei, but I've seen many others as well.

Finally, there's one other consideration that needs to be taken into account and that is privacy. Now this is mostly covered by the requirement of verifiability, but in theory there are some things which might fall under verifiable but yet still private. In the case of a non-famous person we shouldn't be including private facts which are not in the public interest to know. If the person himself asks us to disinclude herself from Wikipedia, and the person is not famous, then we probably should comply.

I've heard en:user:Jamesday describe VFD as a temporary solution put in place until the software could handle deletion in a wiki way. I think he's right on the ball. I'd rather see VFD handled by allowing anyone to hide and unhide articles, and this would just mark the pages as hidden (put some disclaimer at the top), keep it out of random page, keep it out of the search engines, etc. Real deletion could still be handled by admins, to be limited to copyright violations, illegal content, and patent nonsense.

I don't think we should have a general secretary position until the need for one comes up. As such, if I am chosen as general secretary I will make no executive decisions until my role has been defined in more detail and a rough consensus for the position has emerged. Anthony DiPierro 12:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then What Should Be Deleted?

I support inclusionism, but I think that one of the things inclusionism needs to be strong is a philosophy about what should be deleted. My general philosophy is to ask if deletion, in and of itself, improves Wikipedia. An article does have a slight cost of existance: it takes up a namespace and could be misleading or pure nonsense.

Although a policy of deleting nothing would not harm good articles, Wikipedians collectively seek to improve Wikipedia for use. The idea behind Wikipedia is that anyone should be able to use it. Thus, Wikipedia should seek to have the maximum amount of information without impeding the retrival of desired information by Wikipedia's users. "Making every word into a link to a disambiguation page" would not be a good possibility for Wikipedia, as it would be confusing, and thus dificult for users to retrieve wanted information, defeating Wikipedia's purpose. Wikipedia does need to be trimmed, but that trimming should be minimalistic. --L33tminion 05:45, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Types of items that should be deleted:

• Pure Vanity- An article about someone edited by only them usually falls into this catagory. I don't think that Wikipedia should have the biography of everyone as an article, although certainly anyone can write an article about themselves on their userpage.
• Inherently NPOV- An article that is, by it's very nature, inpossible to write in an NPOV nature should be deleted. I think that Wikiproject should strive for a NPOV, and while POV writing may be a necessary step towards writing an NPOV article, if the article can never be NPOV, it just sits there being misleading.
• No Notability- Any encyclopedic notability is enough for a keep. Once again, I don't think that Wikipedia should have the biography of everyone as an article. Non-notable people articles do have some confusing effect on Wikipedia, as there is no set convention for dealing with articles about multiple people with the same name (and, even if there was, the confusion from having people with no notability on Wikipedia would slightly outweigh the benefit from having them there).
• Totally Unverifiable- Providing misinformation is bad. (Although currently unverified is no reason to delete.)

I'd add topics which are almost never covered in encyclopedias and better covered by other projects, to include "How to" articles ("How to build a snowman" is out, "snowman" is in) and dictionary definitions (adjectives, verbs, etc).

Common reasons used that are not good reasons for deletion:

• Advertisement- These may be deletable as pure vanity or inheirent POV, but usually these have the potential to be balanced, valid (although specific), articles.
• Fancruft- Information on fictional worlds is vast, which makes it, if anything, more important that Wikipedia catalogue it. Where else can that inforation reside. And there is demand. Merge things when necessary, but fiction is a perfectly valid subject for an article (although it does need to be made clear that the subject matter is fictional).
• Non-notable- When given for things that "aren't good enough." A class clown is one thing, a published author is another (no matter the percieved fame or quality of thier work. The test should be whether the person has any encyclopedic validity. I can't even imagine a hypothetical "Encyclopedia of Class Clowns," but I can imagine an inclusive "Encyclopedia of Authors" (or engineers, or entrepreneurs, or artists, etc., etc.).

Vanity, notability, biography of everybody

I feel strongly that it is worth the disk space to have a biographical encyclopedia article on every human being who has ever lived. The only limitation on inclusion which I consider acceptable is verifiability. If information is not verifiable, then we can't trust it. This of course includes gibberish, but patent nonsense... has anybody read W:Reptilian Humanoid? Thats reletively verifiable nonsense. Anyhow I feel strongl;y that we should clarify our group position, and vote accordingly. Sam [Spade] 15:44, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I heartily agree. The only criterium should be correctness and verifiability. Most persons would not ever be mentioned in as much as a newspaper article through their lifetimes, so the demand for verifiability pretty much excludes mention of "the class clown" already. I think Wikipedia should include information on every person, every book, every building or street that anyone has bothered to write about outside of Wikipedia. Arj 19:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal on Village Pump: Please Weigh In

I submitted a proposal on the Village Pump for a way to reconcile with the Deletionists, and hopefully support the overall inclusionist agenda. Please read my proposal and weigh in there. Posiduck 23:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

General Secretary term limits

ShaunMacPherson brought up the idea of term limits for the office of General Secretary. I suggest we have a six-month limit, after which there's a new election. Of course, this could be shortened if resignation or impeachment occurs. Any comments? Factitious 07:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reasons not to have a Secretary

Since 1) many members haven't voted at all, 2) the general secretary would serve no real purpose, and 3) the idea of not having one has recieved equal weight to the most popular candidate, I think we should just be more of a commune, and not have any sort of hierarchy. Posiduck 22:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind having a general secretary at some point, if the need arises. But for now I think we can run essentially by consensus. Anthony DiPierro 13:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me just clarify that I'm not disputing Factitious having won General Secretary. If ey wants to call emself General Secretary, I see no problem. If ey tries to enforce a rule which does not have consensus support, then I'll just leave the association. Anthony DiPierro 13:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• If I try to enforce a rule that doesn't have consensus support, I should be impeached. For that matter, I don't think I should be enforcing rules at all. Consensus is a much more sensible way of doing things. Factitious 22:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It's unclear to me what the purpose of the general secretary is, then. Maybe we should just call you "Public Relations Officer" or something. Anthony DiPierro 17:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Election results

Kind of interesting that the election turned out to be decided on November 2. I'm honored to accept the position of General Secretary.

To calm concerns of a "hierarchy" developing, I've modified the page to state something that I'd felt went without saying, but should probably be made explicit anyway — all AIW members are equal. I don't think any of us are very interested in creating an inclusionist hierarchy anyway. Factitious 03:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Appeal To Inclusionists

I am a rookie, so please pardon my technical efficacy. I proposed a scheme to construct public opinion called LinkMyMind, which is listed for deletion. Some members are of the opinion that it is spam, but no one has indicated so far - why? I appeal to the Association Of Inclusionists to look into the matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LinkMyMind. Thank you - Rohit Gupta

• • In short a proposal of your own creation would not be encyclopedic. As the page is no longer available I'm afraid I can't help much in where might be a place for it to be published, feel free to contact me via talk. �Florescentbulb 04:39, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • The content is available at http://www.mcfly.org/wik/LinkMyMind . 4.63.109.164 20:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Appeal for help

I have just joined because of a voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_Palestinian_children_killed_by_Israelis_in_2004 Although there is some ‘memorialism’ in this article which can be fixed by making it ‘List of incidences’ like Similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_terrorist_attacks_in_Canada Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_list_of_Palestinian_terrorist_acts. If you see the ‘user contributions’ of the voters, voting for deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_Palestinian_children_killed_by_Israelis_in_2004. They are ‘Allegedly’ doing it because of their affiliation. How can I get help on it? I believe we can clean it up. This article is worth cleanup not deletion. Zain 14:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can I add it to section needing attention for voting?

Zain 14:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added it. Please, feel free to add any votes that need attention. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ]] 22:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I would strongly encourage the AIW to participate in this group. Presently, we are very much under-represented, though the project appears to have goals similar the goals of AIW. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ]] 05:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Has anything useful come out of that forum? I took a quick look and it looks like a bunch of vaporware. Anthony DiPierro 21:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's hard to tell. If it's stagnant, it may be worth reviving. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ]] 21:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Viewing deleted articles

I don't think we inclusionists should vote yes on this one. Firstly, there are many good reasons to delete pages, such as copyvio and spam. Secondly, this might not further our goal of having a comprehensive and all-encompassing encyclopedia -- the deletionists get an opportunity to say "you can look at the contents of deleted articles, so why are you complaining?" Arj 21:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of an inclusionist/deletionist issue. Copyvios are excluded from that proposal, and I don't see the usefulness in not being able to check if the "spam" is really spam. This might hurt Wikipedia in the long run, if it gives the deletionists a winning advantage, but if that happens it just means Wikipedia will lose to a more inclusive encyclopedia. Personally I'm in it for the end result, and don't care whether the encyclopedia is called "Wikipedia" or something else. Anthony DiPierro 21:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis_-_Compensation_and_Liability_Disputes Some Wikipedians consider this request for deletion a little harsh.

Significant revision is in progress. Please visit and comment, if you consider appropriate.

VfD Repeates? Solutions?

I noticed that some articles sometimes keep going back to VfD until they finally get deleted. Is there any offical policy to prevent an article going bad onto the VfD before a certain time period? If not perhaps it would be a good idea to push for a proposal to have it so an article that was voted not to be deleted on the VfD should not be able to be put back for a period, say maybe 6 months? Please give your ideas and comments here, and any ideas on how to do a policy proposal (i'm not sure where to start the process). --ShaunMacPherson 01:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is meaningless to start voting keep for articles proposed for deletion, we have to find another way to delete or cancel Vfd policy itself, and disruption is one way to do this. Also have in mind that in wikipedia THERE IS NOT ANY REAL POLICY. Everything is fake, there are many policies decided by very few people that, in order to be reverted, a rough consensus is required (I think you got the point, they will never be reverted because those few people subscribe socks to destroy rough consensus). Also all policies in wikipedia are designed by those few people in order to be blur and contradict one another, so that admins and arbis can decide whatever they actually want, without any real rule. Iasson 07:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would the AIW members please consider expelling Iasson from your organization and removing his trolling comments on sight? I just edited out one of his personal attacks from the member list. He is currently blocked but continues to edit anonymously. In Wikipedia, he has a long track record of wasting time and causing disruption. The amount of other peoples time he has wasted, and the amount of ill will he has generated, vastly outweighs what little he has contributed. Tolerating his recurrent trolling on deletion related matters does not reflect well on the public image of your association. jni 05:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, but 6 months is a WikiEternity. I'd prefer two or three, but them again I'm a deletionist ;( jni 05:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting! You want the decision to be valid for three months when ShaunMacPherson wants 6 months. Who is right and who is wrong? Why dont you try a semi- peculiar vote of the type [poll_option, time the decision should be valid] , then implement the Average rule decision method? Your vote will be [poll_option, 3 months], ShaunMacPherson vote will be [poll_option, 6 months] and the final result will be [(your_poll_option+ShaunMacPherson_poll_option)/2, 4.5 monhts]. Isnt this fair? Or you still believe that your 3 months period is the correct period and ShaunMacPherson opinion does not count (means you are a fascist) ?

Camp Quest Canada

I believe Camp Quest Canada is an article, which must be kept or merged with Camp Quest. Therefore, I hope some inclusionists will help keep or merge it. It is important, because it provides knowledge on Canada's only freethinking children's camp. However, deletionists do not realise it's important, or they are obsesed on deletion.

Warning! Precedent for Speedy Deletion of School Stub and School Substubs!

The article here seems to be going up for SPEEDY deletion simply because it is a school! Deletionists cannot win in the VfD so this maybe a tactic to create a precedent for the speedy deletion of schools stub or school sub stubs! Please monitor this situation and the talk page at the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians to discuss this issue.

Im my opinion SPEEDY deletion of school stubs and school substubs is inapproperate! --ShaunMacPherson 07:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inclusionist

Everyone should add this to their userpage: {{Inclusionist}} Looks nice and all. Havok 21:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Members only vote.Asking whether we want the below text to be removed from our frontpage

The below text has been in inclusionists front page for a very long time. Now Angela and some others which are not members of our clan they want to delete it. The text follows:

=== Inclusionism and Copyrighted texts ===
"There are some things that are copyright" (Thryduulf Copyrighted), so we are not allowed by international laws     
to edit them. For those things, the rampant inclusionist wikipedians can use the   "wikicache" template, 
then lock-protect the  page (or in case they have not administrator priviledges they can sent copyrighted texts to
article's history which  fortunately is not GFDL yet). 
Wikipedians deserve to read copyrighted texts, the way googlepedians or yahoopedians are doing, they also  
deserve to discuss those texts, and vote for them.

Wikicache template was (it is not anymore as long as it has been deleted by rampant deletionists) something like this:

This is Wikipedia's cache of http://www.beliefnet.com/story/143/story_14370_1.html as retrieved 
on 25 Jul 2005 15:37:11 GMT.
Wikipedia's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:  http://.....
Wikipedia is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.

Please, members only, lets vote whether we like the future inclusionist members to know that a wikicache idea is feasible, and it can be used as very a strong argument against rampant deletionists. A page marked with Wikicache template should always be a locked page. Wikicached pages of copyrighted texts are identical to the millions of copyrighted cached texts yahoo or google or other search engines are having.

1. keep it. (anonymous inclusionist)

Coping with the high volume of VfD submissions on en:

The rate of VfD proposals on en: is now so high that no single person can be expected to review and vote on all proposals. As an experiment, I tried yesterday to work my way through en:Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_1, but I gave up half-way through. Today, several articles that I voted to keep are now gone.

That VfD is too crowded is an acknowledged problem by all sides in the deletion vs. inclusion debate. We should participate in the ongoing debate at en:Wikipedia:Deletion_reform. Since the main concern for us inclusionist is the danger of bad deletes, I propose that we set up a sort of "VfD watch" system. It could work such that one member, or a couple of members, assign themselves the task of reviewing the articles on VfD for one date each. Opinions? Comments? Arj 14:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I thik the best way to go about this is to focus our efforts on Votes for Undeletion. It's relatively un-crowded, and it's an easy place to make an impact. Further, if our efforts do draw more deletionists to pay attention to VfU, then their efforts will be spread thin, making a concerted attack on the deletion system altogether much easier. Our best shot is to render the current or any future systems ineffective and "too much trouble" for deletionists to bother with. Kmweber 16:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

A Proposition for the AIW

Dear AIW,

I am the founder of a new organization on Wikipedia, the Association of Conservative Semi-Prejudicial Wikipedians (ACSW). I founded it te morning on the 14th. We are strictly Inclusionist, and feel as if the Deletionist Policy should be liquidated from Wiki-doctrine. I am proposing an Alliance in the best interests of both the AIW, and the ACSW, and I hereby welcome any member of any organization to join one another's, and further the policies of both your organization, and the ACSW.

Interim General Secretary of the ACSW,

Kinneyboy90 22:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Template deletion: general and specific

Hi y'all. I wasn't sure how to list something so I just went for it. How do you guys feel about template inclusion? I don't like that a handful of people (they seem like fine peeps) hang around and vote on masses of stuff that comes across en:templates for deletion. probly not a new complaint around here I guess, huh? check out the vote. it's not looking good. If anyone thinkz I have a case, any support you could lend would be killer. thankz, yaaaa Schzzly 23:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC) en:user:kzzl

Meta?

Why, if this is the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, is this on meta? Kmweber 16:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

yeah, good question. I think it's a cool place for it tho. I'm only just learning what meta is all about but I gather it's all about stuff like this. hehe. 68.84.208.199 18:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC) oops. I mean yaaaa Schzzly 18:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gallery_of_Nintendo_Entertainment_System_screenshots

Gallery articles up for deletion!

I noticed that these articles:

• Gallery of Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots
• Gallery of Super Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots
• Gallery of Sega Mega Drive and Sega Genesis screenshots
• Gallery of Sega Master System screenshots

that you worked on in the past are now are up for deletion. Would you vote in favor of keeping these articles? They show the history of the advancement of video game graphics over time and are useful as a source of images for graphics for video game articles. --ShaunMacPherson 20:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A Better Proposition for the AIW

I am Canadianism and founder of the Association of antiexclusionist Wikipedians. I recomdend inclusionists to join the association to combat exclusionists that try to lessen the amount of information on an article or make it less in-depth. Exclusionists (or, people who are exclusionistic in my view) do this my either making an article over general and not including the debate over the topic (e.g. the Exclusionism article) or making an article of only one point of view (exclusionist-similar people, such as the Association of Conservative Semi-Prejudicial Wikipedians). To protect Wikipedia as a base of in-depth knowledge with a Neutral Point of View we must put a conclusion to exclusion!

• Better proposition!!!! I doubt it Canadianism. I am tired of being called an exclusionist, I have never deleted an article in my entire life!!!! Your empty titles are so foolish, and you stick them on me so assertively, you don't even start to analyze my record on Wikipedia. Next time, look at the stats and my "record" for a start! But please, let me keep my dignity, and don't demonize me by calling me an exclusionist!!!! Apparently, all Secular Humanists are liars too!!!

Kinneyboy90 17:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• You may not have deleted many articles, however you advocate the exclusion of imagery, deemed by you, as "inapproperate". I did, however, make a mistake in my writting. Turns out an exclusionist isn't a deletionist. However, you advocate for the exclusion of those images. The Subgroup of Inclusionists Against censorship has a leader who defines censorship as a form of deletionism, however I view it as exclusionist. Think of it, you exclude images from an article, thus making them lesser in length, exactly what an exclusionist dose, excludes material from articles!

Canadianism 20:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Undeletion of Antievolutionist

I am nominating Antievolutionist for undeletion. I view the entire spectrum of opposistion to evolution should be noted on Wikipedia, not just the Christian opposistion. Please support me. Here is the page.

How do you to begin an Inclusionist Subgroup?

I am thinking of begining an Association of Eventualist Wikipedians. Is their any process that must occur for an Inclusionist subgroup to be started?

Canadianism 03:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

High schools

As part of WikiProject Missing Articles, I've started a list of about 500 missing high school articles: en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools. --Brian0918 14:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiliberal

Wikiliberal was originally a term used to describe your average inclusionist. Now it's being deleted! It was originally asked for, to describe what Wikiliberal means.

Canadianism 06:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion

I believe this page was unfairly deleted, originally passing a vote for deletion, being then deleted by User:Ambi. I have nominated it for Undeletion and encourage Inclusionists to join in votting against this invalid VFD.

Canadianism 01:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

High schools

There is now a comprehensive 22,000-entry list of high schools at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools. --Brian0918 16:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Project for inclusion

It's on the top of your page. It's nominated for DELETION. VOTE....LAST CHANCE TO KEEP IT!!!!!!!!

List of modern day dictators

This list has been nominated for AfD by User:172.

• Some would like to delete the list because it is "POV since dictator is undefinable"

• Others argue that the page violates WP:NOR since agreeing consensually to follow a universal dictionary definition is original research. 'Nuff said.

• Some have argued that it should be deleted because it is POV to call anyone a dictator. Which is actually a required argument for deleting this list when you think about it. Otherwise why not just pare it down to a common denominator?

• Pushed into a logical corner some have argued that since POV could be added, the list should be deleted. Which would apply to every article in wiki.

Dictator is not a hard word to define - nor is it in any way controversial amongst dictionaries, encyclopedias, historians, the media or the public or on wiki, where it is used 27,700 times. So clear is the meaning that dictators and their supporters often concede the "dictator" part and merely add "benevolent".

It is long established that POV in an article is in any case no grounds for deletion - merely for its improvement.

People also seem unclear that NPOV is achieved through consensus not some theoretical construct that exists or not.

If there are such things as "dictators" they the list must stay, at least in some form. If it is deleted this implication is that describing anyone as a dictator is always POV. This of course would not only be egregious POV, but is relativism beyond any reasonable point, defies a universal understanding of a word amongst historians and the public - even David Irving.

The spectre of wikipedia refusing to list Hitler+Mussolini et al as dictators hangs over us. Please consider this matter.

You might want to take a look at this Expansion of CSD A7

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Expansion of CSD A7

Trollderella 22:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians

To add yourself to the list of members go to Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians.

Inspectorpanther 19:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

24.7.112.100 02:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Becoming a member

How do i become a member?

Add your name to the members list. Canadianism 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Recycle Bin

This section is for discussing the Wiki Recycle Bin concept. --Easyas12c 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I like this idea- but I'm not sure you could get a wiki approved to preserve what has been deemed the dregs of the Wikipedia, and we'd have to limit our scope anyways- for instance, no copyvios. --maru talk 20:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea! Maybe some sort of "Filtering process" is in order to separate content worth preserving from the true dregs--70.171.29.126 05:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Categorising, linking and/or search engine(s) will do the trick. I don't think removing anything would be necessary. Unless the content is a copyright violation or text "I'd really like to fuck Pamela Andersson". The latter of which would not be a problem to have, but then we'd need to have a counter to know how many times it has been removed. --Easyas12c 18:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Perhaps we still need rules on proper sources and good article writing, but some non-notable articles may still be useful to someone. 192.195.234.26 01:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Afterbirth was at one time thought by many to be disgusting filth not worthy of second thought before dropping it in the biohazard bin. Today umbilical cords and placentas are a fundamental material resource for stem cell and other biological research. -- Pragmatist 15:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is genius! However, the fastest (and guaranteed) method would be to set up a third party wiki ourselves. --Ephilei 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions for Inclusionists

I'm not a deletionist or inclusionist, probably I'm somewhere in the middle. However, while the Association of Deletionists article and talk page seem to be reasonable, there are statements here that I find to be rather outlandish. The deletionists' point seems to be that articles should be notable to be included in an encylopedia, which is a point that any other enyclopedia in the world would agree with. However, I see statements here like "every single person in the world should have a wikipedia article", every street, perhaps every building. So, questions:

• 1. Would this not make for a bizarre "encylopedia", with billions of articles on topics that almost anyone in the world would find to be non-notable, and maybe a few hundred thousand articles on notable topics? If only 1 article in 1000 or 10000 is on a notable topic, would this not lead to obvious difficulties?
• 2. Suppose an article were written on (I'm making this up) "The Red Sweater Buffy The Vampire Slayer Wore in Episode 85 Scene 2", containing a description of said sweater and the fact that the scene she wore it in was 19 seconds long. Would you all vote Keep in an AfD on this?
• 3. Are you all as inclusionist on the content inside articles as you are on overall article topics? That is, do you disagree with Wikipedia:WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information entirely, would you prefer that wikipedia articles did contain lists of frequently asked questions, lists of quotes, instruction manuals, video game walkthroughs, etc?
• 4. And finally, are you all aware that you're basically winning the "battle" against deletionists by default, as the number of wikipedia articles is expanding exponentially, with more stub articles being written every day on minimally notable topics than anyone can possibly get around to deleting? --24.16.34.45 06:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No one is a pure deletionist or inclusionist; we are just further to one side of the spectrum. Thus my response doesn't represent our association:

1. 1 If someone took the time to write the article, someone else will find it worth reading. (Just because it takes so much longer to write than read.) Or say no one finds it worth reading - that doesn't hurt Wikipedia. In the example of Buffy's sweater article, because it's less important than most articles, it's only linked to amidst many other unimportant such articles; those that care can find it, those (most) that don't care won't be bothered by it.
2. 2 Personally, it would be a waste of anyone's time to either vote to delete it or not.
3. 3 That's written policy, and as long as the policy exists we must follow it. I support inclusion for wikis, whether Wikipedia or another wiki. Quotes belong on Wikiquote, instruction manuals and video game walkthroughs on Wikibook, etc. Wikis have a place for (just about?) every kind of information, even if wikipedia does not.
4. 4 I'm not sure if you're right on us "winning," but I hope so. Afterall, it takes more work to delete than to write a stub. Some articles being deleted are much more than stubs. (Be sure to vote for en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushnell view of 1 Corinthians 11

which is 8 kb!) If you are right, so?

w:User:Richardb43/idea for improved user navigation

w:User:Richardb43/idea for improved user navigation As a contributor/administrator of some years at Wiktionary, and 28 years in IT, mostly as a person concerned with the interface between non-tech users and technological solutions, I have a suggestion/idea for some significant but probably simple improvement to the Wiki software. Please see w:User:Richardb43/idea for improved user navigation for the details.

I think this suggestion can go a long way to closing the gulf between inclusionists, deletionists and structurists.

Problem is, I don't know how to promote this idea to the right people in the Wikipedia/MediaWiki space. If anyone knows how to do this, and you think my idea may have merit, please pass this idea on freely.

Thanks.--Richardb43 14:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, i've managed to put it into bugzilla [2] as bug # 5826--Richardb 14:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't edit?

Sorry to bother, but my edit on the main page isn't showing up (tho it does show when editing?). In case the edit is lost somewhere between my browser and the server.

• en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushnell view of 1 Corinthians 11 An interpretation on a chapter of the Bible. It's a very scholarly, but rare, exegesis that's been around for a 100 years and too complex to be merged into a basic feminism article as they suggest. --Ephilei 03:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, disregard this. --Ephilei 03:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Anybody Out There?!

I posted an AfD thinking we could surely save it. Over a hundred members, certainly we could at least prove there was no consensus. But not one inclusionist posted a vote. Does anyone check this list? It's great that we know there are others out there like ourselves, but we need to take action. There may be inclusionists perusing the AfD page, but it's obviously more effective to maintain our list here for to avoid the articles that should be deleted.

Please, don't give up on this! --Ephilei 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess not. --Ephilei 07:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Help needed my article is attact by Deletionists :-)

Hi,

I have some problem with an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_Reserve_Bank if some friendly soul could have a look and give your oppinion if this article really should be deleted?

I have noticed that deletionist getting more active and well organized, they have a lot of arguments listed on their page and are just copy pasting arguments very selldom explaning clearly or in detail why articles should be deleted? There is not the same resources and orginization on inclusionists side. Swedenborg --193.183.18.23 09:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Inviting Creators of Deleted Articles to this Page

Would that be considered "Solicitation Spam" or an appropriate response to someone once their article has been deleted through the AfD process? They might not be aware that such an organization exists with an aim towards including and improving the quality of articles here on Wikipedia. In the future, if they need help with an article that maybe AfD (like with in clean up or to expand a stub) they would know they have a resource. Thoughts? Agne27 15:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The mind of a deletionist

Delete a list, replace with category, then delete everything in said category. It's happening as we speak.

Deletionists love to target shopping malls, claiming non-notability as usual (one of the largest and most well-known buildings in a given city isn't notable?). It's become a big pet peeve of mine. So List of shopping malls in North Carolina is currently up for deletion, with the nominator saying that a category serves the same purpose....but, at least 2 of the malls in that category have also gone up for AFD in the past week! One has already been deleted! So I guess these people think malls aren't even worthy of one-line mentions in Wikipedia. I've tried to be as civil as possible in the AFD debate, but I'm fighting a losing battle. Kirjtc2 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you please help protect this article from unfair deletionists?

Hi Inclusionist Wikipedians! I recently join the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. I was hoping if you can lend me a helping hand with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_of_Management article. On August 10 an unknown person marked it for deletion. Then a group of 4 deletionists gave a delete vote claiming non-notability. Inspite of the fact that nn is not an official reason for deletion, I provided a clear evidence of notability and verifiable references and won a stong keep vote from Ephilei (another inclusionist). However, my concern is that we are only 3 votes against 6 votes . Therefore, I kindly ask you to check the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Institute_of_Management (if it is too long you can check keep-comments). I’m not asking for anything more than an ethical vote. I’m willing to return the favor and review a similar articles. Every keep vote counts, please help! Miro.gal

Clearly the burden of proof should be on the people wishing to make the hardest change to undo. Let them flag the article as low notability, but hasty deletion is annoying. If it's 3 against 6 then it would seem to be notable. Mathiastck 13:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK I did my part. I didn't see the article being discussed, as it appeared deleted or blanked. I'd suggest the article be improved even further, then resubmitted. I did see a strong argument for keeping it, and every argument for deleting it that I saw appears invalid now. (Google page ranking, etc. )Mathiastck 13:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)