Talk:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians

Delete Deletionists Association

This association has been created by a group of trolls from the English Wikipedia. Their goal is to turn wikipedia from NPOV to POV. Deletionists must get what they deserve. Delete them asap! (I think a speedy delete is more appropriate, but anyway...) Iasson 10:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Go away. --Slowking Man 03:09, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I second that. Xtra 11:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete meaning for inclusionists is not the same as deletionists. Have a look at our proposed policy. We allow logged in users to use a tool to see deleted articles. Our deletion is not actually a deletion with the sense deletionists are giving to it, but rather an attempt to turn some articles "illegal" and "contemptible" in the eyes of wikipedia community, but still beeing able to see them. Iasson 09:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please translate what he is trying to say? -Unsigned

Sure, he's just doing a riff on Gödel — you know, "“I am not provable.” Namely, an inclusionist wants to delete the deleters. And by the way, why is this page so dead? NPOV is still at plague levels, so unless we're too busy deleting to talk about deleting, then we're as flaky as the inclusionists. (Experiment to follow) — J M Rice 02:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete I support this association's deletion. They want to lessen Wikipedia by only includeding a few, large, long, famous articles and deleting less known ones, or rather than edit the article, delete it if it has no words (why don't you add information?). Canadianism 19:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• The fundamental basis of Deletionist's philosophy is that: "It is not what you say that counts but what you don't say." -- Pragmatist 19:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete I support this association's deletion. I wish this was all just a bad joke, but its not... It have become the worst form of Vandalism on Wiki... The whole idea with this project is to build information not delete. Deletionist wet dream is to delete all Wiki, then they would be really cool... I suggest we start a Delete Deletionists movement!

Delete Sick of these assholes trying to destroy Wikipedia. They find it easier to destroy rather than create and then they feel good about their contributions. 89.243.182.6 03:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep, we have our right to be ourselves and to profess Deletionism as a movement for cleaning of Wikipedia from trolls, uncyclopedists, spamers and other tale-tellers. Look how much associations do we have! It is awful to persecute wikipedians for their convictions, especialy if their convictions completely harmonize with WP:NOT and other politics! --A1 23:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. A purportedly deletionist association is fundamentally incompatible with the aims of Wikipedia, because the purpose of the project is to create an encyclopedia, not delete one. [Contrary to the previous comment, deletionism is fundamentally incompatible with all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, since the very concept inherently seeks to make them more deletionist than they are at present.] In any event, since excessive deletion has caused the editor retention emergency and brought the project to its knees, the mere existence of a purportedly deletionist association is exceptionally dangerous. James500 (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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. (200.212.114.10 00:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC))

Last week our part of town had "bulky waste evening" where every household puts big stuff which is no longer needed on the wayside in front of the house. The next morning when the garbage truck came I was on front the house and noticed that some of the stuff which came from our house was not there anymore. Somebody took it at night. Is that person now living among garbage? Or did I throw away usefull stuff?

Schools

I'm curious, why are articles about schools more important than any other article? --Eequor 13:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Schools affect a significant number of people, as opposed to John Smith's vanity article. Ambi 08:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would articles about hospitals, then, be more important than every other article? --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 14:10, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I certainly consider hospitals to be an important topic to include. Does anyone disagree with that? Factitious 21:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My personal view is that they should be judged on a case-by-case basis, probably with a high bar. Others may have different views. We in the deletionist camp are rarely quite so extreme. Ambi 07:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I feel that hospitals have a very high bar to meet to be considered notable. There are so many of them, and naturally they have little to distinguish them. --Improv 20:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand detailing those distinguishing features seems like a useful exercise. If one was trying to find out why some events happened at one hospital and not another. — Florescentbulb 00:09, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK. I'm not a deletionist, and I tend to vote "keep" on well-written non-notable schools, but why did we keep en:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Thames High School? Have deletionists really lost so much ground on high schools? Cool Hand Luke 06:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Intellectually, I'd rather not clutter Wikipedia with high schools, but they are generally public institutions, not ephemera, with some meaning and interest to a fair number of people. As long as they use the high school template and try to follow the suggestions for a good high school article, they're okay. However, elementary schools and most music albums and bands must go. --Tysto 20:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

AIW?

Why is the acronym AIW? Just wondering. Yelyos 01:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's due to Ambi mostly copying the text of Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. --Eequor 08:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ADW/AIW relations

Despite our differing goals, I hope there can be peace between the inclusionists and deletionists. I note that we have some members in common, which seems like a step in the right direction. Perhaps we can work together and remember what we have in common: we're associations of Wikipedians. I think the sections on our pages dealing with people nominated for adminship should be removed, as they're open to mean-spirited abuse. The admin process is dominated by politics and emotion too much already. I'm posting about this on the AIW talk page as well. Factitious 21:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Though I am not the one who added the list of adminship votes to monitor, I took the liberty of deleting it from the AIW page. Votes for adminship ought not take into account the inclusionist/deletionist tendencies of the person nominated, and I would hate to see good admins from either side blocked by factionalism. Posiduck 21:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here Here! Indrian 01:48, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Posiduck. Now that you've removed the offending section there, I'm happy to do the same here. Ambi 05:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Term limits

Do you think that the position of General Secretary should have term limits imposed upon it? I think a six-month term would be adequate, perhaps with a person being limited to two terms. A year in Internet time is like a decade in real time. --Slowking Man 22:26, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal on village pump: please weigh in

Hello Deletionists, I submitted a proposal on the Village Pump for a way to reconcile the desires of the inclusionists with your ideas about wikipedia, and hopefully this proposal will allow for the coexistence of the inclusionist agenda alongside deletionist preferences. Please read my proposal and weigh in there. Posiduck 23:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Impeach"?

I don't quite know how I stumbled upon your clever "association". For myself, ever since "Soda-can stove" and "Exploding whatever they were" hit the main page I began to care less about which articles got generated, and more about the content of each. Speaking of which, we must continue to stamp out the misuse of "impeach", which of course means to accuse, not to bounce out of office. I shudder to consider what manner of unforeseen effects might result from the misapplication of this word as it appears in the very Constitution of this eminent intra-Wikipedian association. user "sfahey" 69.140.167.122 02:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your observation; I've changed the wording accordingly. — Dan | talk 03:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Logo

I think our association needs a logo. What do people think of a en:garbage bin or suchlike? Or maybe a blank slate?

Personally, I was thinking about a silhouetted wrecking ball. --Ardonik 10:12, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

A Dalek would get my vote. CambridgeBayWeather 09:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Greetings (sort of) like minded people. Although not a deletionist myself (more of an exclusionist really), I was amused at your proposed logo suggestions (esp the wrecking ball). I have one for you; An AK47 (or is that too violent?)

BTW if you are getting a bit jaded with rampant deletionism, why not try the new softer option: exclusionism- You know it makes sense! 88.110.246.253 00:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm not a member, I have uploaded a Logo for the association and have made a proposal to make it official on the association page. Please vote to voice you opinions. -- Ukdragon37 17:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Reword

Ah, to the deletionists who tried to kill Daniel Lurker, let me tell you, let us make a deal. I won't delete your articles if you vote to keep on mine. This contract is voidable however if and when one party to the treaty abrogates the other in a nonsequential conclusionist manner not covered by section 5 of the argonaut agreement. 205.217.105.2 21:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Daniel. --Tysto 20:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

Hiya. I thought y'all might be interested in the current VfD for this new project. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 07:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Exclusionist party

I am forming the EP (Exclusionist Party) to incorporate those deletionists who are not really such bad guys as others paint them. If you would like to condsider joining my party, please visit the Exclusionist page to see if this describes you more accurately than the harsh term deletionist 88.110.101.169 15:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC).

Hurry it up! I need a central association of exclusionists to moniter and outpace! The ACSW, or it's new name, is already on the verge of deletion! Sincerly, an Extreme Inclusionist! Canadianism 02:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I am leaving the Deletionists, and joining the Exclusionists after what happened to the Body parts slang article. Note: I had forgotten to sign in before removing my name. Stevietheman 22:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

War on Blog Articles Campaign

I think that some of you may be interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs the goal being ridding wikipedia of useless blogcruft. Thanks.

Mascot

Since he is famous for, among other things, deleting stupid emails, I think that Strong Bad should be either our mascot or at least an honorary member. Thesquire 07:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Garbage filtering tools

There should be better tools to filter garbage. For example, if I have trouble wading through categories because they're full of non-notable stuff (like obscure comics no-one's ever heard of), then I should be able to flip a switch and see a view without all that. -- 216.234.56.130 19:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Issuing a challenge

If any of you were true deltionists you would care of this!--24.107.197.177 22:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad reasons for keeping

It seems to me I had seen a WP policy page mentioning that on AfD, pointing out other similarly bad articles or articles about similarly obscure topics is not a reason to keep an article. Am I imagining that? Can someone identify where that might appear? What also does one do about bad faith keep recommendations, the people who recommend "Keep as obviously notable" on things that obviously aren't, for example? Thanks! -Unsigned

Immediatism

I am an inclusionist, though unlike most inclusionists I am also an immediatist who ants to set up the Association of Immediatist Wikipedians. I turned to you guys because the AIW would not be happy with me and all the other groups would say it was irrelevant. How do I start such an organization. Jonathan235

AFD

Could use some help over at en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Price Card 72.138.248.37 06:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travel Cuts -Unsigned

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 as bug #5826. -Unsigned

String of advertisements

Hi all, can anyone help me? I am a newbie and I don't know how to delete articles in wikipedia. This user created many articles about Philips products that are advertisements. I don't think that it's OK, right?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamium
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixelplus
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambilight
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShoqBox
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philips_GoGear

-Unsigned

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Homer Simpson's jobs

Just notifying you all of the nomination. PMA 04:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Offering a home for unwanted content

Deletionists, I offer the ManyBytesAgo wiki as a substitute home for articles you feel are unfit for Wikipedia. I've already petitioned meta for an Interwiki address, and I've implemented existing Interwiki addressing on the site. Cwolfsheep 18:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That makes me twitch just to read it. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Any help at en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panaca, Nevada, would be much appreciated.--Created Account 13:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This was speedily kept as there is precedent going back to 2002 that all real settlements are worthy of inclusion. Thryduulf (en,commons) 02:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

More-appropriate quotes

• "A man is a critic when he cannot be an artist, in the same way that a man becomes an informer when he cannot be a soldier."—Gustave Flaubert (1846)
• "Most of the trouble in this world has been caused by folks who can’t mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a smallpox virus has." —William Burroughs “My Own Business,” The Adding Machine (1985)

I think that these quotes should be included along with the one already on the page. 67.165.216.16 13:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion policies

I don't see why there are such strict guidelines on what you can and can't write, there is no reason to delete so many articles. This is not a book, there is an unlimited amount of space, it does not impact on people if an article is included, but it has a large impact when something useful is deleted. Just something to ponder. D'Brickashaw

I agree too. Deleting vandalism or vanity pages is good, but what about the other things you advocate deleting? I'm mostly an inletionist, and I don't see the reason to delete substubs. Why delete them? Keep in mind: every piece of information which does not clash with what Wikipedia is not is a potential featured article.--Orthologist 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nominating for deletion

I need to nominate this article for deletion as I just don't think it contributes to Wikipedia as the purpose of the Association seems bent on destroying other editors' hard work and that just isn't right. Please if someone know better nominate this for deletion if my effort did not succeed. Thanks! Sincerely, --24.154.173.243 21:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletionism helps Wikipedia by fighting with crap. Nominating this page for deletion is pointless, because it has been tried before. MaxSem 06:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your crap is someone else's hard work. Delete this. 70.74.14.67 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thou shalt

Not ever resurrect, recreate or reanimate that which has been deleted. It has failed and burns now forever in Bad Article Hell, profane not our Wikipedia with such again. I shall happily create a substub in your favourite topic. You are welcome to nominate it for deletion. Hillgentleman 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please nominate Cornell Progressive for AfD

It's just a student club! I'm new to Wikipedia and don't want to upset anyone, but perhaps someone else is more ambitious? Thanks! 69.203.78.86 00:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Trek fancruft

Hi, I'm new here, but Wikipedia seems overflowing with trek fancruft. I wonder why action hasn't been taken to trim some of it down. For instance, do we really need this page on Species 8472, a fictional extraterrestrial species that appeared in a couple of StrarTrek:Voyager episodes? -Unsigned

These are your goals?

1. Outpace rampant inclusionism
2. Further our goal of a quality encyclopedia containing as little junk as possible

I have another one

1. NO BAD!

It's about as useful and specific. You guys give deletionists a bad name. -Unsigned

Userbox or template?

The inclusionist association has a userbox for people to post on their page which adds them to a category. I think this one should also have something along those lines. You could always just copy what it uses. For those of us who are both deletionist and inclusionist it would be nice to have matching userboxes. Tyciol 17:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Notability of free open source software

Wikipedia is currently missing a standard of notability for free open source software, which causes numerous deletions of articles about otherwise consecrated FOSS, with a large developer and user base. I wrote a FOSS notability proposal at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability of free open source software and would welcome your comments. Thank you, Dandv 03:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Name change

I propose this organisation is renamed to 'Association of Deletionist Wikimedians'. I want to get rid of bad news stories, quotes, pictures, videos, films, species, learning resources and books too! Computerjoe 16:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dust speck articles continue to accumulate

This is a project to dedicate a stub article to each of one of these countless tiny specks, instead of just putting them together on a table or letting the article on the asteroid belt suffice. The assumption is someone, somewhere, someday, might want to read one of them. Eventually, these stubs will constitute a large percentage of all articles on Wikipedia, and will stand as precedent for anyone wanting to include an article about anything, no matter how obscure, as noting could possibly be more obscure and insignificant than one more tiny asteroidlette. The existence of these articles somehow does not violate the Wiki-principle that all articles must be about something notable. Chrisrus 02:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at this, please!

• 
  Click on this for a closer look. An article for each of these? Where will it end?

Explain, please, how these articles do not violate notability standards. An article for each white dot in this picture? How can we explain to those of minor fame whose articles are deleted on obscurity grounds, yet this mind-boggling pile of stubs is allowed to exist?

Either merge them into the main article in some kind of table or something, or delete them all. Unless you have a better idea. Chrisrus 02:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example 14968 Kubáček. Who the hell cares? THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF THESE THINGS! SOON THERE WILL BE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS AND FINALLY MILLIONS!

How can you argue that an article about an article about my uncle George, who is of actual interest to THOUSANDS OF ACTUAL HUMANS, must be deleted because he's non-notable? What's notable about 51406 Massimocalvani? Who will ever read such an article? No one. Millions of articles that NO ONE WILL EVER READ? What could ever more obscure than 9329 Nikolaimedtner? I'll tell you what, NOTHING! Even this speck of lint on my shoulder has more potential to be something significant than main belt asteroidito #34258976 JoeBlowFromIdaho!

If these stupid things can exist, why not an article about anyone who ever lived?

SOMEONE TELL ME WHY Category:Asteroid stubs exists and Catagory: Absolutely Anyone Who's Ever Lived stubs does not??

The goal of Wikipedia versus Information distortion

The understanding that Wikipedia is a user supplied and user driven information database, does make it susceptible for clutter. Since there is no existing feature that I know of in Wikipedia for peer-reviews of posted articles, Wikipedia seems to have a tendency to become just as much a vehicle of disinformation as for information. The solution would be to create a standardized mechanism for peer-reviews of supplicated materials before final posting. Marking this material a "under review" during that period.

Code of Deletionism

Offer to do some improvings and changing in sequence:

1. Thou shalt not create an article that knowingly violates WP:NOT, WP:N,WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV.
2. Thou shalt not tolerate an Inclusionist to include worthless screed, lest we become fucking Uncyclopedia.
3. 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 WP:IGNORE.
4. Thou shalt not ever resurrect, recreate or reanimate that which has been deleted. It has failed and burns now forever in Bad Article Hell, profane not our Wikipedia with such again.
5. 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.
6. Thou shalt not delete an article only if it's consensus admits fulfills WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV.
7. Thou shalt not apply thy banhammer to newbies, but obligatory attempt to guide them to Articles for Creation.
8. Thou shalt not bite the newbies, even if they are creating for-shit articles, for they are the future.
9. Thou shalt not be a WP:DICK to prove your WP:POINT, but you will be WP:BB as a lion to stand up for what is Holy and Proper to be Deleted. --A1 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If no objection I put it in! --A1 18:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling for help from fellow deletionists

Hey all,

First time posting here, so forgive me if there is some more appropriate forum to do this in.

I think the WP article Unethical human experimentation in the United States is shenanegans and probably violates NOTTEXT and NOTPAPER. Are there any experienced deletionist editors out there who'd like to help me get this deleted? Thanks, NickCT 15:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad but I'm not experienced in en-wiki. If I could write smth like "per NickCT" I'll do it with pleasure. --A1 19:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD proposal

I've proposed that AfDs should require a seconder. Please comment there. --Michael C Price 10:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process

There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

Please place responses regarding this matter here on this Association of Deletionist Wikipedians Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 06:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: There's also a discussion currently occurring regarding this topic at: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion - Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. Northamerica1000 14:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletionist Extinction?

Did all the deletionists die out? I don't see any recent edits here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scientific Alan 2 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Inherent notability creep

I admit that I'm a notability hard-liner, I'm one of those people who think that schools shouldn't be considered inherently notable. Only this weekend I encountered for deletion/Coat of arms of the London Borough of Haringey in which some editors appear to be implying that all civic heraldry is inherently notable, or in other words the articles should be kept no matter how few or low-quality the sources. /Sigh! --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Satirical image taken seriously?

Wikipedia needs to be cleaned up

File:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png is only a satirical image and shouldn't be covered here as serious argument with "Wikipedia needs to be cleaned up" caption. Please remove it. --Rezonansowy (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Done I've removed it myself. --Rezonansowy (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite

I plan on doing an extensive rewrite/expand of the page. Thanks, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Time limit for {{Empty section}} and {{Expand section}}

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, I have now suggested that {{Empty section}} (along with the preceding header) and {{Expand section}} should be removed after a certain time limit, mainly because they don't seem to actually result in expanded sections in the long term. Please share your thoughts there:

• WP:Templates for discussion/Time limit for Template:Empty section and Template:Expand section

Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this project still active?

I increasingly feel that Wikipedia has reached a point at which exclusion or deletion becomes more often helpful for Wikipedia than further inclusion. Now I'm wondering why apparently so few people see it this way. (As evidenced by the growth of duplications here and the lack of participation in this WP. The latter might be because many, like me, are loath to label themselves with an “-ist” word, apart from profession names and a few words such as “cyclist”.)

So: Is this project still active? I'm posting this same message on Talk:Association of Exclusionist Wikipedians; if I receive a message by only one association, then I'd suggest merging the other association there. And if I receive no reply ... well, I wouldn't go so far as to delete both associations, but mark them as historical. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, in most cases I believe the best result for Wikipedia can be reached by merging. But that's a lot of work. It gives me some hope that there exists an Association of Mergist Wikipedians, but it seems this hasn't been active in recent years, either. So I will post a similar message there. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the group is clearly dead at present. How can it be considered seriously when the stated General Secretary, Ambi, has themself been deleted for over a decade without any update by the group since then? Not even a logo could be agreed upon in all these years. Dysfunctional. - Indefensible (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)