Jump to content

Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians/Arguments

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Mark Chung (talk | contribs) at 09:48, 2 January 2009 (update). It may differ significantly from the current version.

These are quotes from some deletionists and my arguements. If you'd like to comment, please do so, but make it bold. Thanks.

The original source is at Association of Deletionist Wikipedians.

This page will be updated often.

Quotes & Arguments

Wikipedia needs to be cleaned up! You said that! Why did you delete then?
  • Wikipedia is not a junkyard, counter to the inclusionist quote, Wikipedia is not paper. --Improv 06:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's what cleanup is for, not deletion.
Some junkyards can't be cleaned up.
Split then, not delete.
Translate please?
Only an inclusionist wouldn't understand it.
Because deletionists use their awkward language(s). Too bad.
  • The proliferation of mediocrity is never its own excuse, and the absence of good information does not obviate the need for that information. Geogre 16:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What???
Only an inclusionist wouldn't understand it.
Because deletionists use their awkward language(s). Too bad.
  • Wikipedia is not Google JFWT@lk 20:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia should replace Google.
...
And keep out all the bad results/articles.
There is no bad information - use "Inappropriate" instead. Move it then.
  • Single-sentence "substubs" do not an encyclopedia entry make. Or, if you prefer, substubs suck. Mediocrity should not be tolerated! - Lucky 6.9 05:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, kill your baby before the baby grows.
Roe v. Wade says we can.
Why should we follow his/her butt?
  • Roses are red/violets are blue/in Soviet Wikipedia/bad article delete you. --Slowking Man
Translate please?
Only an inclusionist wouldn't understand.
Because deletionists use their awkward language(s). Too bad.
  • Wikipedia is and will always be an encyclopedia. [...] It is not a general base of knowledge. - Anthony DiPierro
But Jimbo said that Wikipedia should be the sum of total knowledge on the world.
That is technically impossible, so we'll be an encyclopedia.
That is possible. Wikipedia is not a paper.
  • Verifiable ≠ Enyclopedic Johnleemk 12:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But Jimbo said that Wikipedia should be the sum of total knowledge on the world.
That is technically impossible, so we'll be an encyclopedia.
That is possible. Wikipedia is not a paper.
  • Inclusionism is the easy option. Elf-friend 20:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why choose the harder one?
Path of least resistance makes crooked men and crooked streams.
Path of most resistance makes minced men, dead editors, mad people... They make people crazy.
  • Wikipedia is not toilet paper, as opposed to the inclusionist quote, Wikipedia is not paper. 165.21.154.111 08:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So, delete everything till nothing's left.
So delete the bad stuff till no bad articles are left.
Not even good ones.
...without further thoughts?
If you doubt that your spouse loves you, kill.
We have no worries: the lawyers on the Dream Team are all deletionists.
That's why it's called dream team - everything's only a dream after being deleted.
Brevity is the doom of Wikipedia.
Citation needed.
Brevity is ... stub.
It doesn't have a stub template.
  • Wikipedia is not a dumpster —attr. Viajero
Wikipedia shouldn't be EMPTY. It should be full.
Of good articles not in need of deletion.
True enough.
Are you an inclusionist?
Are you a deletionist?
You can predict the answer. No. I suppose if you're a nihilist and consider nonexistence "Better".
Because deletionists delete everything.
Because we miss a small part of inclusionist stuff that needs deleted.
Famous ≈ Notable
Citation needed.
WP:N
No article, no problem, no Wikipedia.
Only bad articles have problems.
  • Wikipedia is not Chewing Tobacco, and Other Surreal Essays.
What are you talking about???
Inclusionists wouldn't know.
Yeah, because it's written in Moron language, a special language for deletionists.
Translate this alien language, please.
Everyone knows it except inclusionists.
Yeah, because it's written in Moron language, a special language for deletionists.
Deletionism is for lazy builders.
A lazy fatwad is worse than a lazy builder.
The word "fatwad" doesn't exist.
Why not try reinstall it?
Who reinstalls Windows? LINUX!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dreadful... So then how do you still have a PC with which to constrict Wikipedia? I guess something's worth saving.
But Jimbo said that Wikipedia should be the sum of total knowledge on the world.
That is technically impossible, so we'll be an encyclopedia.
That is possible. Wikipedia is not a paper.
That would be vandalism/test edits. Nothing to do with deleting an article. Reverting it would be easier.
What if there was nothing good to start with?
Examples?
Why not try warning, blocking or page protecting instead?
What if spammers/vandals become admins and then spam/vandalize.
Spammers and vandals won't likely to pass their RfA/RfB. Don't worry, dear.
So what?
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians/Arguments&oldid=1329886"