Association of Deletionist Wikipedians/Members

P social sciences.png
Rev. Ajay Varghese, if you want to be associated with this group. Note, in keeping with the spirit of the place, if your name appears in red for some time—if you cannot be bothered to create a Talk page here—then your name will be deleted from the list! Active participants as of this date:

  1. With strong inclusions tendencies related to schools. Neutrality 00:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Tends to nip things in the bud, before they grow to large POV monstrosities. JFW T@lk 14:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. News reports and substubs should not masquerade as encyclopedia articles. — Dan | talk 04:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. With strong deletion tendencies related to non-notable schools. Johnleemk 14:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. With the strongest rancor reserved for attempts at self-promotion. Postdlf 02:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Terminate all typos on sight! (Although I do have this strange penchant for methodically creating all possible variant article names - check out this, and even moreso this, to see my contradictory nature at work. Isn't there some quote about contradictions and great minds? :-) Jnc 09:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. I am against non-notable Schools and I think a more concrete standard should be developed to determine notability.[[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 21:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. Against articles on verbs, adjectives, numbers, and anything not encyclopedic. Anthony DiPierro 19:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. I solemnly vow to defend this noble venture against every crackpottery, self-promotion, hagiography, fancruftery and other idiocy that I can find... if and when I feel like it, that is. Hmm. Kosebamse 18:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. Delete early, delete often, especially vanity articles, self-promotion and fancruft. I have some inclusionist tendencies towards lists and categories, though. jni 10:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  11. Delete. Most-used word. Utcursch 09:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  12. Article under 500 bytes will not survive ! Hashar 09:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. Cool Hand Luke 00:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC). I believe high school stubs should be deleted. (see also)
  14. He who is not willing to take out the trash will surely perish under a pile of crap. --RoySmith 03:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. Vanity alert! Delete away! ;) - Mailer Diablo 19:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  16. Ferret out the weasels! Death to all whateverists! J M Rice 02:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  17. Deletionist with mergist tendencies(British Rail Class 508). --Tysto 21:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  18. CDVF makes deleting useless, unencyclopedic drivel fun and easy! --FCYTravis 09:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  19. Strong Delete The ideal Wikipedia will contain only two articles, and both of them will be about meat. Until that day comes, the Deletionists must persevere. Fernando Rizo 02:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  20. At long last, a place to call home! --Ardonik 09:59, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  21. Delete, rinse, repeat. I am home. --ArmadniGeneral 15:46, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  22. Death to all articles about teenagers who want the world to know what high school they went to and what their cat is called. Expand WP:CSD! I'm not entirely sure about the schools thing, but I don't expect I'll ever look them up. --IByte 7 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
  23. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not a receptacle for any useless garbage that pops into someone's head. -Soltak 00:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  24. Because shit happens.—encephalonέγκέφαλος 23:14, 8 August 2005
  25. Death to ALL cruft. Even my own. RasputinAXP 15:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  26. Let the Daleks cry be your watchword in the Holy Fight of Deletionism. CambridgeBayWeather 09:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  27. There's far too much New Age Bullshit on wikipedia. I think we ought to delete most of it. Most of it is POV, and the New Age Wikipedians fight tooth and nail to keep them POV. Alot of it is irrelevent, like the many different kinds of "divination." Why don't we delete all the -ancys? Maprovonsha 22:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  28. WP:ISNOT a list of slang; I tend to think that most lists should be created by categories when they are appropriate at all, though I also live by the maxim "Never lose data." --Kgf0 16:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Always a deletionest if you guys see me in en Aranda56 05:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. I'm either a Deletionist with strong Mergist tendencies, or a Mergist with strong Deletionist tendencies. I suspect the former, though I do have a high tolerance for pop-culture-related articles, especially those about computer gaming and genre fiction. However, I am absolutely croggled that we have individual articles for every freakin' mini-game ever to appear on The Price is Right. I don't think I want to live in a world where there's an individual Wikipedia article for every one of those games. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 18:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Voice of All 16:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC). Time to take out the trash!
  32. Vaporize the cruft tsunami!!! Swamp Ig 09:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  33. Say hello to my special friends {{db-bio}} and {{nonsense}} ;) Zunaid 11:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  34. I can verify that I have two eyes, two legs and two arms, and that I am also male. That doesn't mean I should write about myself. Enochlau 13:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  35. What took me so long? Die cruft die! --Wgfinley 05:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  36. Delete all non-notable content. Sorry, nn schools included IMO. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]
  37. Better Wikipedia articles through deletionism? You bet your sweet ass ++Deiz 23:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  38. Still deletionist, but no Wikipedian any more. Timo Müller Diskussion 22:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  39. We attempt to create a repository of lasting worth; this cannot be populated by dross. Avi 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  40. Excellent idea. Stifle 13:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. Let's slaughter all unworthy pagez!!! MaxSem 16:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  42. I am interested even in the quality of my toilet paper. Why should I bother using Wikijunk then? --Dodo 21:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  43. in the interest of a robust, junk-free wikipedia, I am tempted to put a ((nonsense)) template on this page. CrzRussian 23:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. Death to useless crap! Fishhead64 22:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  45. Wikipedia isn't a wall. Martin Kozák 16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  46. Remove spam from our dearly loved 'pedia! Kjetil r 21:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  47. Kill it all! Admrboltz 05:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  48. so excited that this is association exists --Strothra 05:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  49. It's all about the concision, baby!--TrianaC 06:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  50. Well, let's face the thruth, I kind of agree with the above Blinking Spirit 21:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  51. Wikipedia is not a wastepaper basket Lurker 14:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  52. I'm not deleting the article, I'm deleting the usless pile of crap. The Hybrid
  53. All is vanity! And subject is non-notable! Green Hornet
  54. Too late, gone. --Húsönd 03:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  55. Down with cruft! Especially nice that I found this today, seeing as we just got CSD:G11 on en. :-) --Storkk 15:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  56. *Delete per the socks!! Vyse 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  57. My three favorite letters are A F D. ADW comes in second though. Kill the cruft. --Shrieking Harpy Gay Pride Flag.svgTalk|Count 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oops, did I hit the delete button? Seraphimblade 03:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  59. Will there be refreshments? NeoFreak 10:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  60. Thou shall not fill Wikipedia with meaningless non-notable crufty anecdotes about the local high school. MartinDk 22:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  61. This time at school me and two friends made up this indiscriminate list of bands. Elomis 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  62. --Moreschi 20:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  63. We should filter out all the crap in wikipedia. We need stricter notability guidlines. --Sir James Paul 21:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  64. Inclusionist turned deletionist here! Stuff that violates WP:NOR is what gives Wikipedia a bad name. Don't stand for it, delete it. - Chardish 07:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  65. Bushcarrot 02:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  66. Delete this page as listcruft. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  67. Deletion is fun. Moogy 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  68. Get rid of nonsense tabloids from Wiki. Causesobad 02:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  69. I will 必勝 as a Delitionist. younilha 02:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  70. Three Cheers For Sweet Deletion Dark Devil 10:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  71. This is just about the only article I wouldn't delete. BlackBear
  72. User:Wikihermit 23:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  73. It is true that WP is not paper, but that does not mean it should be a micocosm of "TEH INTERNEST!" User:RogueNinja
  74. The integrity of wikipedia must be preserved through vigilant deletion of articles on trivial or wrong! topics --Benfeig 00:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  75. Be bold--delete an article today. Blueboy96 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  76. Wikipedia should continue to be an encyclopedia. Theredhouse7 21:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  77. BE BOLD. Delete pages that support deletionism. I join this list entirely out of protest. Mathiastck 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  78. I would like to second (third, etc.) all of the "delete this very page" jokes above. Tregoweth 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  79. According to the Grand Unified Theory, Wikipedia should only have one article. RandomHumanoid 02:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  80. Peace 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  81. Somehow what I had written to post here got ... err ... umm ... deleted. ô¿ô 16:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  82. Deleting articles is a beautiful thing. Saget53 22:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  83. What is/are "sports"? And how is anybody involved in it/them "notable"? Qworty 17:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  84. Deletionists in popular culture! --Finngall talk 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  85. If the title starts with "List of..", delete it. If the article will never be more than one sentence, merge it. Man It's So Loud In Here 23:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  86. Sources must not be deleted without proof. But if they truly must go, it will go and that's the Bottom line cause the Great Administrators said so. Night Leon
  87. cite your sources. A former inclusionist.Djgranados 18:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  88. Nobody cares that your band made a video with a $50 digital camera, then managed up enough tech savvy to post it on YouTube. I'm sure your grandmother is proud of you for winning the local pie eating contest, but we're not. Your daughter is not notable because she got a B+ in her 4th grade math class. Feel the swift cut of my WikiScythe across the neck of your "List of persons of Mexican-American-Indian-Russian-German-Norse-Eskimo descent who live in houses that are between 2073 and 2104 square feet and were born on Tuesday." And always remember: this is WikiPEDIA, not WikiRUMORBLOG. Gromlakh 07:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  89. I like school articles, but we do need a massive cleanout. my 'pedia page Dendodge 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  90. Mainly against bios that need to be deleted or merged as they simply do not stand on their own (e.g. w:Joe Ryan), wannabe authors (nothing ever published), pseudo internet celebrities, obscure professional wrestlers, etc. For allowing articles of notable products e.g. popular commercial beverages that can be distinguished from those which are clearly advertising. The rest decided on a case by case basis (your basic fence sitter / lurking member). For keeping schools, within reasonable limitations. Really obscure or trivial pop culture stuff I'll likely vote to Delete Bsharkey 21:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  91. I have my own blind criteria for deletion: articles who can prove to have at least one paper book written about their subject shall survive, all the others shall we deleted! I believe this criteria would delete 90% of the useless stuff. SyG 13:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  92. If only I was as adamant about my own excess lard as I am about Wikipedia's! Kelvinc 04:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  93. Purity Through Deletion. Xdenizen 11:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  94. I've found my place. Terrillja 01:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  95. Exterminate! Exterminate! --Woland37 21:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  96. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Not a phonebook. Strikeout Sister 01:48, 28 November 200(UTC)
  97. The lesser evil is some time falseDanSand 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  98. I support joining this club per nom. --Call me Bubba 02:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  99. Twinkle is good because of the anti-vandalism tools; superb because of the CSD tab. Mynameinc 02:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  100. Finally, I have found a home! So happy there are so many like-minded Wikipedians. --MrShamrock 04:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  101. Delete 16x9 22:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  102. Less is the new more. Take Thelongview 12:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  103. If you can't beat em.. Jnnnnn 05:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  104. I delete a lot of whitespace, vain signature formatting on talk pages, advertisements, etc. Tyciol 17:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  105. No distinctions! No mercy!
  106. I'm a deletionist, and proud of it. It is important that people show no compassion when interpreting Wiki policies. We do not want to set a precedence of inclusionism by letting a few articles slide. Groink 12:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  107. Being a redirectionist is boring. Computerjoe 16:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  108. Alexius08 01:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  109. Cordially yours from uk-wiki --A1 21:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  110. Let's delete footballers and comedians and news reporters Spiderone 20:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  111. Deletionists? They don't exist - pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... (GregJackP 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC))
  112. Delete silly biographies and exhaustive repetitions --Knight1993 16:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  113. Delete Substubs and obscure musicians and their albums (Also, Kidz Bop doesn't need a page for every album. Ronk01 01:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  114. Deletion is fun. Fortunately for us, thousands of new articles are created on average every day so we'll never run out of cannon fodder. -- 20:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  115. Vibhijain 09:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  116. Kadanuumuu 04:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  117. Jbribeiro1 23:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Against inclusionist reactionary crap. I'm active at wiki-pt, so you all know it's a global fight....
  118. Eman2129 03:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  119. Gsingh 20:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  120. The point of Wikipedia is to provide people with information. In order to allow people to find the information that they want, some standard must exist so that when someone is looking for that information they can find it without having to wade through dozens of miscellaneous articles. I call it the "John Smith" principle: If you look up John Smith, you will get a redirect page, as the name is fairly common. However, if there are too many articles on too many people named John Smith, then your disambiguation page can become so cluttered that finding the important ones can be extremely difficult and actually harm the quality of Wikipedia. The same thing applies to other categories...if a given level of accepted notability would make such a disambiguation page ridiculously cluttered, then that level is too broad. Tyrenon 13:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  121. We need to raise standards of notability - and clean up listcruft and spurious hatnotes/links/references/etc. --Karl.brown (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  122. A great idea!--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  123. we shall defend the encyclopedia, rubbish shall not pass!--Nickanc (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  124. Proud to be a Deletionist Wikipedian Alpedio (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  125. Better a Deletionist than a Delutionist. I am a kind butcher in the wikipedian army Casper 1 May 2013
  126. Wikipedia is about information. There is no room for frivolous lollygagging. I will be known as the butcher of Wikipedia!! Newsjunky12 (Talk)
  127. Anshuk (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  128. Strong Delete 19:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  129. Delete is the best protection of Wikipedia!----三石樑桂老 (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  130. If I'm not allowed to delete everything, then at least I can delete self-promotion, advertising, spin, hype, smoke and bs. In so doing, I'm trying to uphold the WP:GNG. AadaamS (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  131. Why should tiny, poorly written articles stay when they needed cleanup years ago? Retartist (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  132. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random trivia and opinions! --Daviddwd (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  133. Unreferenced material is killing Wikipedia's credibility. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  134. I believe articles must show more information with less text, less unreferenced information and be edited by the most minimalist of editors on Wikipedia, us. --Buffaboy (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  135. Articles that exist for promotional purposes, because someone wants to make a point, because editors an encyclopedia is a newspaper, or, my personal pet peeve, because editors think notability can be synthesized (A is notable, B is notable, so therefore A+B must be notable, which is how you get articles like Exploding animal) mislead readers and/or debase the project. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  136. When in doubt, I say speedy. GottaGoFast (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  137. "That's interesting" doesn't equal "that's notable". Woodcutterty (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  138. 00:35, 22 November 2015 Rayukk - My Life (hist) [22 bytes] Rayukk (talk | contribs) (Created empty page)
  139. Wikipedia is not Hermaeus Mora. ThePortaller (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  140. If it can't be verified, or if it only interests people living on your block, don't make a page about it! AirCombat (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  141. Count me in, just for the reason above me. RuleTheWiki (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  142. Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  143. Mommy I'm home Inlinetext (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  144. The easiest way to get a massive power trip is to CSD some noob's article about themselves. GammaRadiator (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  145. OK, we've got the two world wars and the sinking of the Titanic covered. How much more do we really need? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  146. PROUD TO LEAD THE CHARGE against fancruft, typos, crappy templates, pop culture articles, and various other scum. Dedicated to the destruction of custom signatures. WE GOTTA GET ORGANIZED! Pariah24 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  147. I think there's a limit to what wikipedia can achieve Hmcst1 (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  148. There is far too much cruft that gets kept with a weak couple of references. Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  149. More people and concepts are becoming notable solely online or through social media as it becomes increasingly reported on by mainstream news sources. There needs to be a level-headed approach to the inclusion of such material. Without sacrificing high standards of reliable sourcing and notability, such material deemed to have a WP:LASTING effect is a benefit to a time based project which will ultimately stand to inform sociologists and even archeologists of future generations. I'm joining this group to advocate that deletionist positions are effected judiciously, while recognizing that the way in which we merit notability is in a state of evolution. Edaham (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  150. Sgd. Hasley 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  151. Deletionists can be dumb sometimes, but Wikipedia is not Google, a dumbing ground for facts or an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete all cruft and non-notable articles! 344917661X (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  152. Because I’m goddamn sick and tired of seeing articles hanging for dear life because of these paltry notability standards. Appearance is not notability. Trillfendi (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  153. There is a fine line between notability and eventuality. There are reason why we have the userspace. ImmortalWizard (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  154. The time spent to deal with garbage is not spent to improve notable articles. Roverea (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  155. Wikipedia should be deleted. jk Nikolaiho (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  156. Suffer not garbage articles to live. Doublethink1954 (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  157. Non-notable companies and organizations should have their pages deleted, regardless how long they've been around. Moreover, notoriety is not inherited. ---Dmehus (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  158. Stuff like trivia, and other non-notable info added by over-obsessed fans of a work (especially cartoons) don’t belong here, there’s other wiki sites for that. Wikipedia can have a lot of quality information without being bare-boned, by the way. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  159. Pre-staging redirects of a subtopic to the major topic's page is a form of pollution. Especially when the page contains no useful information inherently implied by the redirect title. This isn't a search engine, giving you the best bad result we can. Delete unneccessary redirects, and let the pages stand empty, so that they show up as red inter-wiki links for would-be contributors to start in a clean working environment. Louis Waweru (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  160. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a trash bin full of stubs. Herobrine (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  161. SHISHIR DUA (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  162. Wikipedia must retain its distinction to be "the source" of knowledge in the internet. By opening the gates of encyclopedia, this reputation and standing will be ruined in the long run. Of course everybody can contribute but we needs to stand up against mediocrity.--EmreOsm95 (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  163. Delete per nom. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 18:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  164. There is no greater pleasure in life than to delete 86legs (talk) 3:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  165. Not so sure if i'm doing this right, but count me in! Leeo pard kat (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  166. Strong Delete So much cruft, garbage, OR-laden text that needs to be BALEETED. MrAureliusR (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  167. Here we go! --Xenverly (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
  168. I am against non-notable Schools and I think a more concrete standard should be developed to determine notability. —Equine-man
  169. The age of a stub does not increase the notability of its subject matter. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)