285:
Star Trek shit. But damn me, those two series have some excellent fucking articles, and there's not a damn thing wrong with most of them. Special cases are biographies of living people (who can sue you) and subtypes (music, software) that have additional notability requirements -- but if I can't be sure they utterly fail those I often won't vote, or will vote keep.
457:
said, the primary difference between the Old Guard and the
Deletionist Cabal is that the Old Guard is just as reactionary as the Whackaloon Inclusionists. Improv (Our Dark Lord of Deletion) once obliterated dozens of pages on cookies to make a point. No Cabalist would try a stunt like that, since many of the articles were good contributions.
31:
69:
1210:
388:
They typically do not even get involved in XfD unless and until they see something they think can be kept. These are, for the most part, rational men and women who you can converse with. They also have a point : too many good articles are deleted for minor failings, and these could be easily fixed.
395:
inclusionists, who want to list EVERYTHING. Naming names would get me in trouble, but their Prince of
Insufficient Radiance could be construed as a poorly worded bohemian with delusions of taste. (Good luck figuring out who I'm talking about.) They hate the idea of limits, or policy, or verifiability
357:
If the Forces of Light stubbornly defend an article that's a copyvio of a copyvio with no sources, 145 non-free images, and paragraphs of original research, you may have a hard time keeping cool. Don't blow up. Don't be an asshole or do something rash to get the point across. Stick to your guns, cite
263:
create an article that you KNOW can't be verified, uses original research, or is partisan screed. EVER. No sources? Fine. Controversial? Fine. Doesn't meet a substrata of notablity? Can be dealt with, maybe. But far too many people fail to make this first, critical check. IF all articles ensured they
621:
People bitch about those three more than anything else, but they are SPECIFIC for a reason. How 'encyclopedic' is it to have a shitty, no sources 4 line article about some furry site? I'm sorry, but it isn't. It - just - isn't. You can shout inclusion to the high heavens, but there are MILLIONS upon
323:
Inclusionists mean well. But they have no sense of discrimination or concern for the long-term effects of their actions. Blind to the results, they are sometimes hypocritical in their thundering denunciations of deletionist activity. The problem is that often in such zealotry they'll defend articles
1613:
379:
To understand
Deletionists, you have to understand inclusionists. Inclusionists believe that articles should not be deleted but rather improved and expanded on. They tend towards beliefs that almost anything has a place on Knowledge (XXG) since it strives to be a repository of all human knowledge.
456:
The second rank is often sneeringly referred to as the
Deletionist Cabal. I consider myself a member of this group. They want to apply policy uniformly to determine what articles should stay and go, and they want something close to immediatism as a guideline of when this should be done. That being
404:
hyperbole, sarcasm or exaggeration. I am totally and deadly serious. Whackaloon
Inclusonists feel that deleting a non-notable garage band "betrays fans and our audience", that "no one has a right to remove articles from Knowledge (XXG) for any reason", that "you people who vote delete should go to
284:
This is the flip side of the coin. If an article meets the basic standards of encyclopedic content -- it's verifiable, no original research, and NPOV -- and this is uncontested, you should be EXTREMELY reluctant to delete it. "Cruft" is not a fucking deletion criteria. I don't like
Pokemon. I hate
428:
Yes, that's a stirring platform to work from to make
Knowledge (XXG) a better place. To me, this is the heart of the problem. Some people feel anything that can be improved -- however ephemerial the chance, however asinine the topic -- should be allowed unlimited time to do so. Deletionism is all
387:
is a good example, are reasonable. They believe that articles should be given a chance. They will vote delete on crap , but they want to keep a borderline article. They feel (perhaps rightly) that too many articles that could be improved to become good articles are never given a chance to do so.
596:
Don't write articles about your views, ideas and advice. Who the fuck are you? Again, if you're famous, or have been in the news, or are notable (and I don't mean garage bands) then that's one thing, but the rest of the time, NO ONE ELSE CARES. GET OVER YOURSELF. (Feel free, however, to mentally
464:. I don't particularly care for this kind. They are the ones who are always voting "delete, cruft", without recourse to policy. Unlike the other kinds of Deletionists, they only want to destroy fancruft, or anything particularly non-encyclopedic. This strikes me as mentally lazy....but safe.
412:
Wait, better example: once upon a time some
Whackaloon Inclusionist wrote something called the Knowledge (XXG):The "real" guide to creating articles. It was nothing more than a way to game the system, belittle process, and get whatever crap article you wanted past deletion. And it was openly
549:
Z is a different ball of wax. It's totally subjective. Let's assume Z is 25%. Then we have 5% of 25%, which is 1.25%. The inclusionists feel that 1.25% of the articles that are deleted from
Knowledge (XXG) should really still be here, and that Deletionists are slowly destroying the wiki.
704:. Don't engage in ad hominem bullshit. Don't attack the motives of those people who vote to oppose you. Don't suggest cabals are behind the hate of the article. Alternatively, if you're voting to delete, don't suggest that anyone voting keep is a blind idiot. (Even if they are).
467:
All three branches of
Deletionism argue vehemently over the proper scope, focus, and process of deletion. NO ONE wants to delete good articles, or to delete any articles really, if they would just meet policy. We only want a wikipedia that is limited, factual and encyclopedic.
1580:
590:
Don't write articles about yourself, your friends, your company, or your creation. Unless you've been in the news. Then it's okay. Otherwise, ask yourself -- could you get this published in the newspaper? If you can't do that, then you definately can't get it here. For good
553:
These numbers are, in a lot of ways, crap. On both sides. The count of for-shit unsourced stubs could be much, much higher or lower. I know that out of 1500000 articles, 36332 have at least one unsourced statement. 5338 are claimed to be disputed and need verification. A
1265:
452:
at one time, but he has changed over years. A pure deletionist is someone who feels an article that cannot meet every possible criterion constantly should be deleted and salted. This class of Deletionist is called the Old Guard, and they are indeed a dying breed.
890:
340:
Similarly, Eventualists feel that since everything COULD be notable SOMEDAY, everything should be included. This particular kind of psychosis is excreable, and must also be opposed. If it can't meet policy, it needs to go away to the big burny place in the
711:. If someone improves the article, change your vote. If someone shows notability, offer to help fix the article up. Stay above petty namecalling and remember that immediatism looks at things right now. IF it's fixed right now, it should stay right now.
1365:
1015:
781:
396:-- if it exists, or might exist, it should be here. and they sneer at the idea of an encyclopedia. They seek to game the system to allow anything possible in, for no other reason than their own personal beliefs about 'audiences'. These people are
1220:
479:
There is a certain class of wikiperson who feels EVERYTHING has a place in Knowledge (XXG). There is another class of wikiperson who feels that only THINGS THAT MEET POLICY have a place in Knowledge (XXG). The two 'sides' cannot agree.
314:
Corollary to 3. Yelling at people for making bad articles doesn't get them to write good articles. It just drives them off. You want MORE people writing GOOD articles so they get HOOKED and want to CONTRIBUTE EFFECTIVELY. Simple common
305:
For fucks sake, people need to read CSD more carefully. Each speedy deletion criteria is CAREFULLY laid out..and 90% of the contentious bullshit we see at XfD stems from improper tagging. Stop masturbating wrong tags over stubs! Fix
1435:
1390:
1475:
965:
88:
NOTE: This essay has evolved from snarky commentation to deeper thinking. Please do not go nitpicking through the history, but read what is presented. It cannot be read shorn of it's sarcastic tone, but there is thinking
622:
MILLIONS of tiny companies, garage bands and websites that NO ONE AT ALL cares about. Why include then? Just to do it? No one is going to expand this shit. No one is going to read it. Why waste your time and mine?
1010:
1430:
1335:
696:
it truly fails a critical criteria. Sometimes you can nudge people to fix the article or fix it yourself, but if you can't, the threat of deletion will often work wonders in improving articles (and thus, the
1540:
1530:
685:. Never nominate or vote something for deletion based on how you feel about it. If you can't find a policy that supports deleting it, you must either vote keep or (better yet) stay out of the discussion.
975:
825:
725:. I never list out what articles I nominate for deletion. We aren't keeping score. It makes you look like an Old Guard Deletionist who would like to slay anything you can't find in a paper encyclopedia.
1628:
1065:
1005:
1440:
1290:
743:. Sometimes even Whackaloon Inclusionists get it right. Admittedly, a snowball has a better chance of surviving for a year in the Sahara while surrounded by men dying of thirst, but it could happen.
1075:
880:
1370:
232:
The purpose of this essay is a tongue in cheek evaluation of Deletionism. Please do not take offence at anything within, unless you are an Inclusionist, in which case you can ... never mind.
421:
Ironic, isn't it? Deletionists want *gasp* an encyclopedia that is LIMITED, FACTUAL, and ENCYCLOPEDIC. By definition, then, our opponents, the Whackaloon Inclusionists, want a mess that is
413:
dismissive of anyone who wanted to follow policy correctly. Little POV problem there, buddy? My favorite quote is this one, since it points out just how goddamned insane these people are:
734:. It makes you look like an ass. It's made me look like an ass. Whether the articles lives or dies, tomorrow you'll still be editing the Wiki, and so will the person you're fucking with.
1095:
1270:
1260:
1195:
1120:
332:
7.Thou shalt not tolerate an Eventualist to put off deleting a sourceless, badly written, original research laden article about a garage band's guitarist simply because they scream
297:
newbies is despicable, and speedy deleting their pages on NP patrols for such things as not having sources is also silly. Guide them. Help them to become good writers and editors.
1460:
1000:
1505:
945:
830:
1190:
1405:
925:
366:
ressurect, recreate or reanimate that which has been deleted. It has failed and burns now forever in Bad Article Hell, profane not our Knowledge (XXG) with such again.
1520:
1480:
1415:
1450:
1155:
1090:
1535:
1375:
1320:
1205:
955:
1623:
1465:
1185:
1150:
875:
1110:
1300:
1420:
1285:
1244:
1200:
915:
102:
I created two articles today, with sources. What the fuck did you do? Saved a list of masturbation positions for hermaphrodites. Out-fucking-standing.
1500:
1485:
1455:
432:
Some might consider Eventualists, Mergists, and those guys at Integration as Inclusionists as well, but their primary motivations seem to be based on
574:
1470:
845:
661:
Do tell anyone whining about Google hits to fuck themselves. Rectally. Google is not Knowledge (XXG) and I cannot stand this method of 'notability'.
1570:
1385:
1380:
1135:
429:
about LIMITING what goes in so that it is FACTUAL and so that you learn something from it, which is what an ENCYCLOPEDIA is supposedly ALL ABOUT.
301:
4.Thou shalt not hesitate to apply the Speedy Deletion Tag, but only after making damn sure the article you are tagging REALLY fits the criteria.
240:
This is a semi-serious code that I try to adhere to when looking over articles, deciding whether or not to vote, or AfD, or speedy tag, or prod.
1550:
1395:
1170:
1060:
1030:
1025:
293:
AfC is a great place for a new person to go. There are all kinds of resources there to guide them through the process of making good articles.
417:"Deletionists are Wikipedians who believe Knowledge (XXG) is a better encyclopedia when its information is limited, factual and encyclopedic."
1515:
1160:
1085:
768:
1585:
1165:
370:
When things die, let them stay dead. Even if it's YOUR article. Don't recreate deleted content unless you plan to make SIGNIFICANT changes.
181:
46:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
1040:
1035:
77:
47:
950:
1225:
820:
120:
Look, this band is notable to the people who listen to them. Go apply your stupid policys somwhere else, and stop stiflign creativity.
1560:
1354:
1275:
1020:
920:
324:
that would shame a garbage dump. Don't let them. Destroy crap. Don't let medocrity and status quo fill Knowledge (XXG) with shit like
206:
concept that articles that fail to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s policies on what makes an acceptible article should be deleted, immediately
1445:
1400:
1215:
1050:
835:
1670:
1545:
1410:
1255:
1125:
1080:
940:
864:
810:
546:
is 5. That is, I'm assuming that the articles that are being deleted properly from wikipedia comprise maybe 5% of it's content.
1618:
1295:
1175:
1140:
985:
935:
1280:
1180:
1115:
990:
970:
910:
643:
Do make the article in your own space before posting it. Dammit, do it right. Don't make 40 edits to a 1 paragraph article.
1575:
1510:
1490:
1105:
1100:
980:
905:
900:
895:
1130:
815:
1495:
1305:
1070:
794:
539:
If Knowledge (XXG) has a value of 100, and the articles deleted from Knowledge (XXG) comprise 5% of it's value, then
1525:
1310:
614:. Companies must have published mentions, a listing on indexes or have a share price used as a stock market index
1425:
1315:
1045:
930:
761:
1325:
562:
1330:
1145:
995:
558:
of 1268 pages were up for deletion, speedy, or prod at the time of this writing, and most of that is images.
319:
6.Thou shalt not tolerate an Inclusionist to include worthless screed, lest we become fucking Uncyclopedia.
840:
1211:
User:Vanished user 909146283013/Follow the WP:EPISODE guideline and make AfD easier for articles that don't
777:
448:
Deletionists, since most people try to swing towards the center. Probably the most rabid deletionist was
383:
There are two branches of Inclusionists. The first is the Loose or Benign Inclusionist branch, of which
310:
5.Thou shalt not bite the newbies, even if they are creating for-shit articles, for they are the future.
51:
1665:
1644:
885:
754:
606:
Websites must have either published reviews, an award or began content that someone else republished
289:
3.Thou shalt not apply thy banhammer to newbies, but attempt to guide them to Articles for Creation.
433:
1565:
193:(Note: If you are reading this POV screed after having one of your article deleted, you are in the
333:
39:
653:
Do reference and source your material. Frankly, if an article has 4 good refs, I stop looking to
611:
350:
1581:
User:MichaelQSchmidt/The general notability guide versus subject-specific notability guidelines
221:
They feel that many of the policies are so vague that any article could concievably be deleted.
138:
On Knowledge (XXG), there is a giant conspiracy attempting to have articles agree with reality
325:
615:
597:
defecate all over your userspace...much like I am now. I am many things but not a hypocrite.)
346:
294:
277:
252:
1055:
1266:
User:ASCIIn2Bme/Verifiability and plagiarism are the hammer and anvil of astute wikilawyers
607:
198:
1555:
273:
248:
1614:
Assume the assumption of the assumption of the assumption of the assumption of bad faith
384:
17:
891:
User:Aspening/Just because something is unflattering doesn't mean it should be deleted
610:. Musicians must have either published reviews, an award, or TWO major album releases
353:, but that doesn't mean you can't stand up for what is Holy and Proper to be Deleted.
269:
244:
1659:
805:
1366:
User:HowardBGolden/Abuse of the General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions
1016:
User:HowardBGolden/Abuse of the General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions
54:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
1221:
User:ViperSnake151/Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (Human Readable Version)
175:
163:
1647:
category page has many more, listed below the subcategories section on the pages.
264:
met this before they were even created, Deletionism would be completely unneeded.
449:
169:
157:
692:. No matter how well established an article is, don't be scared to nominate it
215:
They worry new people will get their articles deleted, get fed up, and leave.
1436:
Knowledge (XXG):Don't assume lasting significance for instances of self-harm
529:
is the only valid measurement, and that anything else is basically screed.
178:- Concept that anything goes, including original research and garage bands.
1391:
User:Chrislk02/anarticleaboutaschoolthatcantfindagermanteacherisnotnotable
1476:
User:Mike Cline/Imagining a new way to look at the question of Notability
966:
User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman/Deleting redirects to facilitate searching
259:
This is the important one, the Prime Directive, the UberLaw. You should
508:
Component of Deleted articles that are improper for Knowledge (XXG) is
436:, so I could give a fuck what they think. They're sideliners at best.
172:- Concept that articles that don't meet standards NOW should be deleted
499:
Component of Deleted articles that are proper for Knowledge (XXG) is
211:
Many people dislike this ideal , for several reasons. These include:
1431:
Knowledge (XXG):Don't assume lasting significance for crime articles
515:
Value of Deleted articles that are improper for Knowledge (XXG) is
166:- Concept that articles that are included should be above standards
1336:
User:Vincentvikram/Always keep context in mind when arguing claims
746:
268:
2.Thou shalt not delete an article that consensus admits fulfills
1541:
User:Geo Swan/Evaluating notability for lesser prizes and awards
204:
What is Deletionism? It is an ideal, really. Deletionism is the
68:
1602:
1352:
1242:
976:
User:Geo Swan/opinions/editing Fahd al Jutayli while before Afd
862:
826:
User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Academic and artistic biographies
792:
750:
460:
The final sort of deletionist is the weak deletionist, or the
410:
Did you read that brain-damaged screed at the top of the page?
224:
They feel that many non-notable figures/artists/places/things
131:
113:
95:
25:
1076:
User:NawlinWiki/List of things that will get speedily deleted
881:
User:AleatoryPonderings/Systemic bias in deletion discussions
218:
They feel that deletion does not improve the Knowledge (XXG).
1066:
User:Mike Cline/The Inclusionist's Guide To Deletion Debates
602:
Websites, musicians and companies have inclusion guidelines.
1531:
User:PorkchopGMX/Popularity doesn’t always equal notability
1441:
User:MalwareSmarts/Don't confuse non-notability with a hoax
1371:
User:Philtweir/Academic communities articles and notability
1011:
User:Hijiri88/Don't call yourself or others "inclusionists"
666:
Do avoid creating articles that have no room for expansion.
358:
the policies, and take the pile of shit to Deletion Review.
243:
1.Thou shalt not create an article that knowingly violates
536:
to a high value to try to game the system into recovery.
1291:
User:SMcCandlish/Discretionary sanctions 2013–2018 review
201:
for more information about the actual deletion process.)
1096:
User:Puzzledvegetable/DINC alone is not a reason to keep
160:- Concept that articles should be judged as they are NOW
1506:
User:Davidwr/No topic deserves to be in Knowledge (XXG)
148:
1261:
User:Alexia Death/Community Court for community issues
1196:
User:Tothwolf/rescued essays/AfD: formula for conflict
1121:
User:Robofish/Thoughts on inclusionism and deletionism
1461:
User:League Octopus/Club notability tables (and test)
1006:
User:Hijiri88/Don't call other editors "deletionists"
1001:
User:Hiding/Points to note regarding deletion debates
149:
This kind of shit is why I hate inclusionist thinking
946:
User:Davidwr/Choosing SPEEDY, PROD, or AFD deletion
831:
User:This is Paul/Articles concerning criminal acts
732:
badger people about their votes on their talk pages
1406:User:Czarkoff/essays/Businesses are rarely notable
493:Value of Articles Deleted from Knowledge (XXG) is
1629:Nomination of Knowledge (XXG) for speedy deletion
1481:User:Davidwr/Inherent Notability as a slang term
1416:User:ReaderofthePack/Common notability arguments
1271:User:ASCIIn2Bme/What "no consensus" really means
1451:User:Anon126/Explaining notability to newcomers
1301:User:Orlady/Getting your way at Knowledge (XXG)
1156:User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion
1091:User:SMcCandlish/Notability and Deletion policy
568:
1536:User:RoySmith/essays/Presumption of Notability
1376:User:Robert McClenon/Acceptance of Biographies
1321:User:The Bushranger/Lob a grenade and run away
1206:User:Ultraexactzz/Time-delayed Speedy Deletion
956:User:Eire2020/WP:On the subject of deletionism
926:User:The Bushranger/Don't move articles at AfD
618:. Without them, your article WILL be deleted.
408:Do I sound bitter? Do you think I exaggerate?
1466:User:ArsenalFan700/Indian Football Notability
1186:User:Tisane/Allow viewing of deleted articles
1151:User:SoWhy/Before tagging for speedy deletion
876:User:Mangojuice/Administrators are not slaves
762:
8:
1111:User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7
153:Terms you should be comfortable with :
1421:User:Lagrange613/Coverage is not notability
1286:User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal
1599:
1521:User:Herostratus/"Notable people" sections
1349:
1239:
1201:User:Ultraexactzz/Sorting Deletion Debates
916:User:Bibliomaniac15/A guide to closing CFD
859:
789:
769:
755:
747:
670:
657:delete it EVER. So do most deletionists.
648:Do use the stuff at Articles for Creation.
1501:User:Brainy J/No Exceptions to Notability
1486:User:Robert McClenon/Internet celebrities
1456:User:AliveFreeHappy/Notability (firearms)
575:Article Creation Guide of an Inclusionist
423:UNLIMITED, NONFACTUAL, AND UNENCYCLOPEDIC
1471:User:Phil Sandifer/History of notability
846:User:Steve Smith/Semi-protection of BLPs
48:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
1571:User:ReaderofthePack/YouTube notability
1386:User:Masem/Alternate Take on Notability
1381:User:Alex Noble/AFC is about notability
1191:User:Tisane/Don't delete users' résumés
1136:User:Simon Dodd/Some AFD considerations
1551:User:Esquivalience/Essay on notability
1396:User:ReaderofthePack/Author notability
1171:User:Syrenka V/Protection not deletion
1061:User:Mike Cline/Archimedes was deleted
1031:User:K50 Dude/Essay on Speedy Deletion
1026:User:Jh12/School articles and deletion
630:should just find another fucking wiki.
483:The problem can be summed up as such:
182:The First Pillar : What WP is not
1516:User:Glades12/Notability is temporary
1161:User:Spartaz/Rescuing Deleted Content
1086:User:Northamerica1000/Eager to delete
741:assume the other side is ALWAYS wrong
628:need more reliable sources than usual
7:
1586:User:voorts/The spectrum of coverage
1166:User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up
569:Do's and Do Nots of Article Creation
81:Knowledge (XXG) is a waste of time.
1226:User:Yunshui/Deletion for beginners
821:User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism
626:Occult and non-traditional science
487:Value of Knowledge (XXG) is :
1561:User:Fleets/sandboxWPRL notability
1276:User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem
1021:User:Isomorphic/Essays/Deletionism
951:User:Davidwr/Deleting GA+ articles
52:thoroughly vetted by the community
24:
1446:User:Basket of Puppies/Editorials
1401:User:Gryllida/BiographyNotability
1245:User essays on dispute resolution
1216:User:Vermont/essay/AfD Filibuster
1051:User:Martijn Hoekstra/what is AfD
1041:User:Lenticel/Deletion isn't Evil
1036:User:KGirlTrucker81/What G1 isn't
836:User:Mattinbgn/BLP considerations
709:willing to admit you can be wrong
1546:User:RoySmith/Three best sources
1411:User:Northamerica1000/Churnalism
1256:User:AGK/Arbitration and content
1126:User:RoySmith/Three best sources
1081:User:NeoFreak/Essays/Deletionism
941:User:Northamerica1000/Churnalism
811:User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem
67:
62:
29:
1296:User:Guy Macon/One against many
1176:User:Terrariola/Delete the junk
1141:User:Seraphimblade/Deletion FAQ
986:User:Ginkgo100/Speedy deletions
936:User:Champion/Deletion is cheap
921:User:Buddy431/AFD isn't cleanup
671:Do's and Do Nots of Deletionism
1281:User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur
1181:User:The Cunctator/Deletionism
1116:User:Ritchie333/The Dumpy test
991:User:Graymornings/Have a heart
971:User:Fl/Reports/RevisionDelete
911:User:Balloonman/CSD G10 survey
1:
1576:User:Seraphimblade/sandbox2/3
1511:User:Esquivalience/Notability
1491:User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable
1106:User:RileyBugz/G11 and drafts
1101:User:Randy Kryn/Rule of thumb
981:User:Ginkgo100/AFD philosophy
906:User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey
901:User:Balloonman/CSD A7 survey
896:User:Balloonman/CSD A1 survey
1326:Knowledge (XXG):Unblockables
1131:User:Sebwite/Mock Afd Series
816:User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP
405:hell" and much, much worse.
1496:User:Trackinfo/sandbox/NHSL
1306:User:Robert McClenon/Crisis
1071:User:Mr.Z-man/on fixing CSD
525:Deletionists suggest that Y
184:- What Inclusionists ignore
1687:
1526:User:Uncle G/On notability
1311:User:RGloucester/Sanctions
961:User:Elaragirl/Deletionism
561:More details can be found
476:Now, HERE is the problem:
1641:
1609:
1598:
1426:User:Bahamut0013/deletion
1361:
1355:User essays on notability
1348:
1316:User:Skomorokh/First rule
1251:
1238:
1046:User:Livitup/Deletion FAQ
931:User:Spartaz/Closing AFDs
871:
858:
801:
788:
391:The other branch is the
228:space in Knowledge (XXG).
189:Overview and Introduction
1624:Letters from the editors
1331:User:AGK/AE improvements
1146:User:Shereth/Deletionism
996:User:Hellboy2hell/Delete
444:There are not very many
328:. We want good articles.
147:Before you start :
1671:User essays on deletion
865:User essays on deletion
841:User:SirFozzie/BLP-Lock
639:Here's my list of dos.
419:
345:8.Thou shalt not be a
75:This user thinks that
573:These are taken from
415:
398:quite possibly insane
50:, as it has not been
886:User:Angela/Deletion
400:. This statement is
1566:User:Moray An Par/b
723:treat AfD as a game
532:Inclusionists set Z
236:Code of Deletionism
795:User essays on BLP
1652:
1651:
1637:
1636:
1594:
1593:
1344:
1343:
1234:
1233:
854:
853:
715:
577:, but edited for
362:9.Thou shalt not
326:Cleveland Steamer
145:
144:
127:
126:
109:
108:
90:
85:
84:
60:
59:
1678:
1600:
1350:
1240:
1056:User:MBisanz/AfD
860:
790:
783:
771:
764:
757:
748:
132:
114:
96:
87:
71:
63:
33:
32:
26:
1686:
1685:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1648:
1633:
1605:
1604:Humorous essays
1590:
1556:User:Fleets/RLN
1357:
1340:
1247:
1230:
867:
850:
797:
784:
775:
718:
678:
673:
637:
587:
584:
571:
544:
535:
528:
520:
504:
474:
442:
377:
238:
197:. PLEASE visit
191:
129:
111:
93:
56:
55:
44:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1684:
1682:
1674:
1673:
1668:
1658:
1657:
1650:
1649:
1642:
1639:
1638:
1635:
1634:
1632:
1631:
1626:
1621:
1619:Avoid headings
1616:
1610:
1607:
1606:
1603:
1596:
1595:
1592:
1591:
1589:
1588:
1583:
1578:
1573:
1568:
1563:
1558:
1553:
1548:
1543:
1538:
1533:
1528:
1523:
1518:
1513:
1508:
1503:
1498:
1493:
1488:
1483:
1478:
1473:
1468:
1463:
1458:
1453:
1448:
1443:
1438:
1433:
1428:
1423:
1418:
1413:
1408:
1403:
1398:
1393:
1388:
1383:
1378:
1373:
1368:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1353:
1346:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1339:
1338:
1333:
1328:
1323:
1318:
1313:
1308:
1303:
1298:
1293:
1288:
1283:
1278:
1273:
1268:
1263:
1258:
1252:
1249:
1248:
1243:
1236:
1235:
1232:
1231:
1229:
1228:
1223:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1203:
1198:
1193:
1188:
1183:
1178:
1173:
1168:
1163:
1158:
1153:
1148:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1113:
1108:
1103:
1098:
1093:
1088:
1083:
1078:
1073:
1068:
1063:
1058:
1053:
1048:
1043:
1038:
1033:
1028:
1023:
1018:
1013:
1008:
1003:
998:
993:
988:
983:
978:
973:
968:
963:
958:
953:
948:
943:
938:
933:
928:
923:
918:
913:
908:
903:
898:
893:
888:
883:
878:
872:
869:
868:
863:
856:
855:
852:
851:
849:
848:
843:
838:
833:
828:
823:
818:
813:
808:
802:
799:
798:
793:
786:
785:
776:
774:
773:
766:
759:
751:
745:
744:
736:
735:
727:
726:
717:
714:
713:
712:
705:
698:
694:if and only if
686:
677:
674:
672:
669:
668:
667:
663:
662:
655:
654:
650:
649:
645:
644:
636:
633:
632:
631:
604:
603:
599:
598:
593:
592:
586:
583:
570:
567:
542:
533:
526:
523:
522:
518:
513:
506:
502:
497:
491:
473:
470:
441:
438:
385:User:Spawn Man
376:
373:
372:
371:
360:
359:
349:to prove your
343:
342:
330:
329:
317:
316:
308:
307:
299:
298:
287:
286:
266:
265:
237:
234:
230:
229:
222:
219:
216:
190:
187:
186:
185:
179:
176:m:Inclusionism
173:
167:
164:m:Exclusionism
161:
143:
142:
139:
136:
125:
124:
121:
118:
107:
106:
103:
100:
83:
82:
73:
61:
58:
57:
45:
36:
34:
23:
18:User:Elaragirl
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1683:
1672:
1669:
1667:
1664:
1663:
1661:
1646:
1640:
1630:
1627:
1625:
1622:
1620:
1617:
1615:
1612:
1611:
1608:
1601:
1597:
1587:
1584:
1582:
1579:
1577:
1574:
1572:
1569:
1567:
1564:
1562:
1559:
1557:
1554:
1552:
1549:
1547:
1544:
1542:
1539:
1537:
1534:
1532:
1529:
1527:
1524:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1514:
1512:
1509:
1507:
1504:
1502:
1499:
1497:
1494:
1492:
1489:
1487:
1484:
1482:
1479:
1477:
1474:
1472:
1469:
1467:
1464:
1462:
1459:
1457:
1454:
1452:
1449:
1447:
1444:
1442:
1439:
1437:
1434:
1432:
1429:
1427:
1424:
1422:
1419:
1417:
1414:
1412:
1409:
1407:
1404:
1402:
1399:
1397:
1394:
1392:
1389:
1387:
1384:
1382:
1379:
1377:
1374:
1372:
1369:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1360:
1356:
1351:
1347:
1337:
1334:
1332:
1329:
1327:
1324:
1322:
1319:
1317:
1314:
1312:
1309:
1307:
1304:
1302:
1299:
1297:
1294:
1292:
1289:
1287:
1284:
1282:
1279:
1277:
1274:
1272:
1269:
1267:
1264:
1262:
1259:
1257:
1254:
1253:
1250:
1246:
1241:
1237:
1227:
1224:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1199:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1189:
1187:
1184:
1182:
1179:
1177:
1174:
1172:
1169:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1157:
1154:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1139:
1137:
1134:
1132:
1129:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1119:
1117:
1114:
1112:
1109:
1107:
1104:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1094:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1084:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1074:
1072:
1069:
1067:
1064:
1062:
1059:
1057:
1054:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1044:
1042:
1039:
1037:
1034:
1032:
1029:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1019:
1017:
1014:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1004:
1002:
999:
997:
994:
992:
989:
987:
984:
982:
979:
977:
974:
972:
969:
967:
964:
962:
959:
957:
954:
952:
949:
947:
944:
942:
939:
937:
934:
932:
929:
927:
924:
922:
919:
917:
914:
912:
909:
907:
904:
902:
899:
897:
894:
892:
889:
887:
884:
882:
879:
877:
874:
873:
870:
866:
861:
857:
847:
844:
842:
839:
837:
834:
832:
829:
827:
824:
822:
819:
817:
814:
812:
809:
807:
806:User:DGG/bios
804:
803:
800:
796:
791:
787:
779:
772:
767:
765:
760:
758:
753:
752:
749:
742:
738:
737:
733:
729:
728:
724:
720:
719:
710:
706:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
684:
680:
679:
675:
665:
664:
660:
659:
658:
652:
651:
647:
646:
642:
641:
640:
634:
629:
625:
624:
623:
619:
617:
613:
609:
601:
600:
595:
594:
589:
588:
582:
580:
576:
566:
564:
559:
557:
551:
547:
545:
537:
530:
521:
514:
511:
507:
505:
498:
496:
492:
490:
486:
485:
484:
481:
477:
471:
469:
465:
463:
458:
454:
451:
447:
439:
437:
435:
430:
426:
424:
418:
414:
411:
406:
403:
399:
394:
389:
386:
381:
375:Inclusionists
374:
369:
368:
367:
365:
356:
355:
354:
352:
348:
339:
338:
337:
335:
327:
322:
321:
320:
313:
312:
311:
304:
303:
302:
296:
292:
291:
290:
283:
282:
281:
279:
275:
271:
262:
258:
257:
256:
254:
250:
246:
241:
235:
233:
227:
223:
220:
217:
214:
213:
212:
209:
207:
202:
200:
196:
188:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
170:m:Deletionism
168:
165:
162:
159:
158:m:Immediatism
156:
155:
154:
151:
150:
140:
137:
134:
133:
130:
122:
119:
116:
115:
112:
104:
101:
98:
97:
94:
91:
80:
79:
74:
72:
70:
65:
64:
53:
49:
43:
41:
35:
28:
27:
19:
960:
740:
731:
722:
708:
701:
693:
689:
682:
656:
638:
627:
620:
605:
578:
572:
560:
555:
552:
548:
540:
538:
531:
524:
516:
509:
500:
494:
488:
482:
478:
475:
466:
461:
459:
455:
445:
443:
440:Deletionists
431:
427:
422:
420:
416:
409:
407:
401:
397:
392:
390:
382:
378:
363:
361:
344:
331:
318:
309:
300:
288:
267:
260:
242:
239:
231:
225:
210:
205:
203:
194:
192:
152:
146:
128:
110:
92:
86:
76:
66:
37:
1666:User essays
1645:User essays
778:User essays
472:The problem
450:User:Improv
195:wrong place
78:integrating
38:This is an
1660:Categories
1643:Note: The
581:clarity.
434:WP:ILIKEIT
393:whackaloon
334:WP:IGNORE
612:WP:MUSIC
462:cruftist
351:WP:POINT
616:WP:CORP
591:reason.
347:WP:DICK
278:WP:NPOV
253:WP:NPOV
226:deserve
780:
739:Don't
730:Don't
721:Don't
702:direct
697:Wiki).
608:WP:WEB
579:sanity
315:sense.
295:Biting
276:, and
199:WP:AFD
716:Don't
585:Don't
556:total
274:WP:OR
261:never
251:, or
249:WP:OR
89:here.
40:essay
16:<
690:bold
683:fair
563:here
446:pure
364:ever
341:sky.
270:WP:V
245:WP:V
782:(?)
707:Be
700:Be
688:Be
681:Be
565:.
402:not
306:it.
208:.
1662::
676:Do
635:Do
425:.
336:.
280:.
272:,
255:.
247:,
141:”
135:“
123:”
117:“
105:”
99:“
770:e
763:t
756:v
543:x
541:Y
534:y
527:x
519:y
517:Z
512:.
510:Z
503:x
501:Y
495:Y
489:X
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
