Talk:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians/Archive 2

Blurbs

|

• Need help. [1] needs rescue. wanted to put the rescue tag on myself, but thought I'd better wait. Thanks. 34pin6 14:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Uphold factuality, accuracy and neutrality. Notability is an ephemera. Arj 17:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• In my Wikipedia, there is no elation like the elation of a query yielding knowledge and no downfall like the downfall when it does not. --AceMyth 12:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I hold that "notability" in and of itself is not a proper criterion for inclusion in the unlimited scope of Wikipedia. Other better-suited criteria exist for weeding out useless, incorrect, redundant, or copyrighted material. Dystopos 00:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Knowledge is power. The more that is free the less that governments can steal from the population. me_lkjhgfdsa 20:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not paper. There need be no physical restrictions, and the world's largest room is the room for self-improvement.--Cato 19:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• No matter how many of you feel that a particular article is not worth including, there is always at least ONE person in the world that WILL find that article useful and therefore it is worthy of inclusion. 64.59.144.24 06:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

|}

List of famous bearded people

List of famous bearded people is a well referenced, five day old article having specific membership criteria to be placed on the list. It meets existing Wikipedia policy and guidlines, but still needs your help as you will see if you visit the article. Thanks. -- AriGild 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

LUEshi

Here is another article in a similar state LUEshi. -- AriGild 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletionists and the Gundam pages

On 1/10/7 several Deletionists proposed a total of 17 different mobile suits from the Gundam anime series for deletion[2]. While I do not think this is a deliberate attempt to overwhelm the already inadequate time taken in the deletion process, I feel this is the result. No previous attempt was made by any of the Deletionists to discuss this on any related talk page, though some have been harshly critical of WP:GUNDAMs efforts to clean up these pages, even though the group has been in existance approximately one month and none of the Deletionists made any attempt at cleanup prior to the mass posting of deletion recommendations. Personally, I think this would make an excellent test case to show the flaws of the existing deletion system, which makes deletion far too easy. 205.158.100.26 15:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think inclusionist are less active than deletionist or rather the deletion process is easier which shouldn't be. I am really discouraged by the gundam pages deletion. and I would like to know what is the process of getting those articles back. Danraz 08:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Inclusionists who wish to debate an article's relative worth need to know that it's up for deletion. This is not as obvious as it might seem.--143.81.160.51 07:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on deletion of talk pages

My favorite template Template:Future_article_talk_page got deleted recently. I think I've been the primary user of this template. I use it nearly daily, and frequent it's talk page often. I was quite surprised to find it, and it's talk page, had been deleted without any apparant discussion of the issue... on it's talk page. Anyway, is it not Wikipedia policy to allow talk pages to exist before articles, as long as they assist greatly in the creation, of a good, notable, wikipedia article? 76.171.240.253 15:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Oops forgot to sign in. Mathiastck 15:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've got a bone to pick about deletion of talk pages too. I wrote a (carefully neutral and minimal) article, found it deleted, it then took weeks to even find out why. The (presumed) deleter finally gave a curt simplistic reason - was kinda rude about it - and said it had been written and deleted by many people many times. (the mere controversiality, to me, is an indication it deserves listing). I've never been able to locate a talk page about it, have never had the opportunity to read, understand or confront my ideological opponents, nor to ever present my arguments or evidence. this SUCKS. can anyone help me to find more information, or at least a way to voice my dissatisfaction with the process? this treatment is the kind of thing that really disheartens and drives people away.. jvol 67.169.89.43 23:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Omar Kayyám (on Association Page)

Am I right in thinking that the little piece about piety and wit on your fine association's page is from The Rubiyaat of Omar Kayyám??? Tmalmjursson 00:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Talk with the 'Flow on Wiki

Notability guidelines at En

Inclusionists should be aware of the notability guildeines that have been "adopted" as consensus on the English Wikipedia. These guidelines go to the heart of the inclusionist/deletionist debate. The supporters of these guidelines claim that they are merely "describing consensus" as has already been determined by numerous Afds. I'm skeptical, as I'm sure a lot of you are, that this consensus exists, especially given that some editors have commented negatively on the promotion of the Notability essay (and its progeny, I might add) to "guideline" status. I encourage you to take a look at the guideline and comment on its talk page. - j e r s y k o

I agree with you entirely. The so called consensus is not a consensus at all. I believe they are far too harsh on blogs and commercial organizations. I created an article on a magazine called Law Practice Today that is run by the American Bar Association but because most of its notability came from blogs, business consulting groups and lists of resources in Law Schools and other such places it was deleted. It was mentioned in one good old fashioned article but that apparently was not enough. Heliumballoon 21:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

One think I find particularly annoying is if I create or do a lot of work on an article and then some %^&*$ing deletionist deletes it. I wonder how many Wikipedians (particularly novice ones) have been demoralised by this, and who have left the project when otherwise they would have done lots of good and useful work on Wikipedia. Why not have a policy that any blog, commercial organisation, or magazine can have a page, provided it can be establish that it exists? -- Cabalamat on wp 21:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

New Notability Guidelines

I wish to tweak the guidelines so that

1. It is understood that even if a subject is not mentioned by many articles, if it is mentioned by blogs or commercial organizations then that too can establish notability.
2. Some subjects are inherently notable. Ie if huge numbers of people are interested in a subject then it belongs in wikipedia.

Heliumballoon 21:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD Begging for Help

I'm trying to fight an attack from a deltionist on the AfD for Dekker Dreyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekker_Dreyer I don't have many allies on wikipedia and am looking for help resolving this. It was my first article and verifiable. Even the friends of the deletionist after is can only say "weak delete". It's really trying me crazy. If you can, please take a look at it.Wikimegamaster 08:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the "episode" police?

It seems a group is using WP:EPISODE to delete, reduce, or redirect nearly every article about a television episode. I understand that an article with just a plot summary "may be construed as a Derivative work or a copyright violation" but, being an inclusionist in support of eventualism, I see no problem with waiting for more information to be added to make an article notable. I think it would be great to make our arguments heard more clearly by expressing ourselves at the RfC. Ursasapien (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I NEED TO RANT

Ah those deletionists are so annoying - why dont they go over to the systemic bias page and attempt to improve wikipedia by creating articles not deleting them! Look at there edit history and they spend all there time saying "delete per nom" rather than actually improving wikipedia by expanding current articles. I think i need a wikibreak! 172.207.164.116 21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletionist campaign against high-IQ Societies

The following post should be kept, but it was on the main page of the Association, and as it is (at this time) over a year old, I'm moving it here to eventually be archived somewhere where more prosey things like this should be --Thespian 20:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If I've posted this to the wrong place, please forgive. Over the past week, there has been a deletionist attack on several major high IQ societies, and one article has already been deleted. That article concerned a reputable society, established for over 20 years, which has received extensive mainstream media coverage and gets 12 thousand Google hits, the Mega Society. Up for deletion is an article about Ronald Hoeflin, who also has received much media attention and is perhaps the leading psychometrician in the field of high-end psychometrics, and also articles about, among others, the Prometheus Society, which has produced major scholarly articles on high IQ testing.

Here's what I wrote during the Mega Society deletion debate. It's worth printing here because it has implications far beyond the rarefied world of high IQ societies.

This deletion debate horrifies me. When I read 1984, where anyone whom the ruling elite didnt like was made an "unperson" and all records of him erased, I thought, thank God that's fiction. When I read about the old Soviet Encyclopedia, and how anyone who fell out of favor had his article (as well as his life) deleted, and all users were sent a letter by the NKVD telling them to cut that article out of the volume, I thought, thank God I dont live there. But this is chillingly real.

There are two aspects to my horror.

1. I have devoted my life to helping the ultra-high IQ societies gain the credibility they deserve. I first heard of the Mega Society almost 20 years ago, thanks to a cover story in New York magazine. Some of its members became famous, just by being accepted. It is as respected among us as MIT or Harvard are in the world at large. To find that there are people out there who have never heard of it is as shocking to me as when I moved to the Midwest and found people who have never heard of Wordsworth or Rodin. It means that perhaps my life so far has been in vain.

2. I was at first skeptical of Wikipedia, and the whole notion of a grass-roots internet encyclopedia. I've edited a few entries over the years, but I hesitated to devote much effort to work which could be deleted by the first vandal who came across it. But as time passed I became a believer. The thing worked. But now, in the one area I know about, I have seen just HOW it works. Nameless, faceless, ill-informed accusers can at any time delete an area they object to. They pretend to be a democracy but must out of necessity be an oligarchy. And, since no group of a few hundred people can know everything, they must out of necessity be ill-informed about most of the subject matter they consider for deletions. It's a sad (yet almost humourous) blend of Kafka and Joseph Heller. It doesnt much matter now. Wikipedia is young, and one of many souirces of information. But what happens when it becomes the gold standard? What happens when it becomes the Mega Society of the information world?

Several people have said that they pitied the closing administrator who must decide this case. Instead, I feel envy. This is a great opportunity for him or her to make a contribution to Wikipedia that far exceeds this individual case.My dad was a professor of administrative law and from the time I was a kid he drummed into me three things that make a fair decision under administrative law different from an arbitrary decision by administrative fiat. They are notice, hearing, and (perhaps most important) reasons. NOTICE. As it now stands, the parties affected by a deletion are not told about it. They must learn about it by chance. Yes, these parties may well have a POV. But they are also uniquely qualified to provide relevant information. And uniquely injured by an incorrect deletion. HEARING The deletion procedure does indeed provide a good hearing, provided people are aware of it. Thank you for that. REASONS If the closing admin writes up a short statement of reasons for his or her decision, this will help guide future administrators in future cases. As I understand it, there is no clear policy on notability. It may be applied differently in different cases, and whether or not something is deleted will depend on who the admin is. If reasons are given in this case, they may be used to guide future cases. Not as binding precedent, but for guidance, and, over time Wikilaw will evolve

Some people have told me that Wikipedia works through consensus and not rigid procedure and rules. This may have been possible in the early days but I dont think it is now. Norbert Weiner once wrote that the limit of a small self-governing community where everyone knows each other and can reach consensus is about 100. You cant know every editor and I'm sure not every editor knows about this decision. You might well be a self-organizing system, but if you make a mathematical model of it, you might find that model predicts articles being deleted and then undeleted in an infinite cycle. 152.163.100.6 16:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)My username is Promking but I cant get it to show up here, I'm a newbie.

If any evidence was needed about that Ultra High IQ societies are crutches for the stupid who can pass tests. I submit the above load of bollocks.--JIrate 21:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a liberal

Just felt necessary to declare myself non-liberal. I hereby reject the liberal interpretation of society. (For info, I regard myself as libertarian, but that is a general alignment, not an ideology). I think it is unnecessary and possibly misleading to associate AIW with liberalism. rursus 17:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Er... ok? Abyssal leviathin 05:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Entire category and contents to be deleted

I created a set of articles describing the singles released by Marvin, the Paranoid Android. Somebody is now trying to delete the category and five articles. There are two discussions in progress, one for the category and the other for one of the songs. I thought people here might like to contribute to the discussions:

1. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_14#Category:Marvin.2C_the_Paranoid_Android_songs
2. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marvin_%28song%29

Here is an extract from my contribution:

“ Well, I run a website with these songs on it and have lost count of the number of e-mails received thanking me for making them available. They are a niche interest, but within that niche there is no argument about notability. They are notable++. I guess the person proposing the deletion of the category and all its members is not an Inclusionist. Wikipedia does not have the same space limitations as a paper encyclopedia, so there is no need to restrict content in the same way that a Britannica must. It therefore can and should cater to niche interests. Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia that can do this; it is one of Wikipedia's great strengths. ”

I feel like I am pissing in the wind. Many thanks for any help you can give. 216.123.197.15 19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles written by a single editor

I have set up a list of articles written by a single editor. A lot of these articles are still POV and non-wikified, they are easy targets for deletionists, so you may want to have a look at the list, check the articles, and improve the ones that need to. This is a work in progress, you can help, see discussion page. Nicolas1981 09:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Open a new poll on Viewing deleted articles

I have reopened the discussion at Viewing deleted articles. The new proposal is slightly more nuanced. 71.63.86.150 03:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist the movie

Hi Ladies and Gents.

I am but one man. So I am advising the AIW, in the hope that you will have more human resources to tackle this difficult problem than I. Search for Zeitgeist in google. The first hit is Zeitgeist the movie. So naturally, you'd expect it to have a wikipedia article. Imagine my surprise when I went to the disambiguation page and couldn't find it. So I thought right on, lets create one! Hang on, maybe this is another example of deletionism running wild. As it turns out, yes it is. The original article can be found here [3]. What I can't understand is why something so clearly notable can be deleted, and fail multiple DRVs. They use arguments like non notable (clearly false, its the first google hit for the query Zeitgeist), and lacks reliable sources. Maybe... but even if it did, restore the article and let people find them. Thats the way it always used to work. I hope you will be able to help me. My username is THE KING on wikipedia.

As to the sources, I believe that the link to google video does indeed confirm the existense of the movie. Regarding the details of the release, well, practically they consist very small part of the movie anyway so I don't see it as grounds for removal. But of course, to the notability argument we cannot really answer beyond repeating our different wikipedian philosophy, and it seems, as I understand it, that we're a minority on this matter. The Relativity of The Truth 05:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

All movies should have an article, provided that their existance can be verified. Clearly this movie exists, and clearly it is notable enough that people want to talk about it and write an article about it. If the notability guidelines say this should be deleted, then I disagree with the guidelines. -- Cabalamat on wp 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

inclusionist fork of Wikipedia

I am fed up with deletionists destroying articles I've created or worked on. I worry that Wikipedians are being put off from writing or editing articles by the prospect that their work will be consigned to the dustbin by deletionists (I know this has happened to me and I bet I'm not the only one).

Why shouldn't every film, every TV programme episode, every small-circulation magazine, every pokemon character, etc have an article about it, if people want to write those articles? People who aren't interested in these subjects won't read them, and people who are interested will find them useful.

In an ideal world the deletionists would delete themselves, or at least go found their own encyclopedia which would, appropriately enough, be empty. But they don't want to do that, instead they want to actively disrupt the project of delivering all the world's knowledge to all the world's people.

So I propose an inclusionist fork of Wikipedia.

Who's with me? -- Cabalamat on wp 22:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not me, what we need is an addendum system. Preferably similar to cats but potention a sister project.--Irate4 23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by an addendum system? And what is "cats"? -- Cabalamat on wp 02:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

By cats I meant catagory. By addendum I mean a system for having specialist articles seperate but not totally. See Addendum,--Irate4 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I intend to have an addendum system, which I call "micro-wikis"; think of a wiki niside a wiki. -- Cabalamat on wp 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Then rather than fork perhaps you should get the concept added to Wikipedia?--Irate4 00:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:Delegable proxy

Hi, I just wanted to inform everyone that we have taken the Wikipedia en:delegable proxy experiment live. I encourage you to nominate a proxy. The proxy designation instructions are at en:Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. For instance, if you wish to nominate me as a proxy, you can just go to a user subpage, e.g. if you are Mac, it would be User:Mac/Proxy; create a new page; and then enter:

{{subst:Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table/Designate|Absidy}}

This is of great benefit to inclusionists because you can appoint someone to represent you in policy debates and so on while you are busy elsewhere creating articles or something else productive. Thanks, Absidy (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia inclusionists Facebook group

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11940837589&ref=mf Snowball 19:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up the Facebook group. I've added a link to the group's site. Hope every inclusionist will join! --98.154.26.247 03:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arghhhhh

I went looking for information on an individual only to discover that that the article had been deleted by a self-confessed deletionist weeks before.

Is this what Jimbo meant when he described the "sum of all human knowledge" Francium12 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Today editors preffer deleting over improving

When I first time wrote an article to Wikipedia (Communist party of Yugoslavia, 2004) it was written in bad English, without references, without sections, two factual errors (years) and two non-neutral sentences. But, other contributors soon improved it, and the article looks very well now. The policy of Wikipedia then was "Do not care about errors, it will be fixed by the time".

After four years, in 2008, I tried to write two new articles (mulinux and asmutils). Rather than article improvement, the first reaction, ten minutes after submitting was "Proposed for deletion reason WP:N". Firstly, I waste the time to understand what does it mean. Then I had to search some peer reviewed journals or conference papers who mention these topics, and now I check the pages every day, because the some administrators became as destructive as vandals.

Notability is quite subjective decision. I have general paper encyclopedia "Mala Prosvetina Enciklopedija" written in Yugoslavia in 1985. In this encyclopedia with 50000 articles on 3000 pages, written with font size 5, for example, many local university professors are notable, while Bill Gates has no article (although in 1985 he was quite famous). Not mention that paper encyclopedia does not cite source, they simply give list of the contributors.

Inclusionism Deletionism Scale Proposal

I think it would be interesting if there was a scale that Wikipedians could use to measure their self-identified level of inclusionism or deletionism in their wikiphilosophy and to allow for easier communication of these points of view by sharing a common terminology and measuring system. In any case, it would make for interesting userboxes. :P The scale ranges from negative five to positive five. The lower the number, the more deletionist the philosophy, the higher, the greater tolerance for inclusion. Zero, obviously, is neutral. Anyway, here's an outline of my proposed scale:

• -5 Wikipedia should offer no original content whatsoever. It should only offer links to reliable websites and print references.

• -4 Wikipedia should maintain only a tight core of widely accepted encyclopedic topics. Articles should include on the most need-to-know information on their respective subjects; no trivia, fluff or excessive detail.

• -3 Wikipedia should enact policy changes to restrict the inclusion of obscure, esoteric or pop cultural subjects. All additions lacking obviously reliable sources should be deleted on sight.

• -2 Wikipedia should be much stricter in its enforcement of deletion policies.

• -1 Wikipedia should be slightly stricter in its enforcement of deletion policies.

• 0 Wikipedia's standards for inclusion and deletion are exactly right as they are.

• +1 Wikipedia should be slightly more relaxed in its enforcement of deletion policies.

• +2 Wikipedia should greatly relax its notability requirements.

• +3 Wikipedia should completely do away with notability standards. Any content that can be verified by reliable, independant sources is an acceptable addition.

• +4 Only vandalism can be removed freely. Content must be demonstrated to be inaccurate through a reliable source before it can be removed, although policies regarding what constitutes an accurate source should be greatly relaxed.

• +5 No content should ever be deleted from Wikipedia. Only positive contributions should be accepted.

Not sure what we should call this scale, but I'm sure someone here can think of something spiffy. If anyone has any comments, ideas, criticisms, or whatever, please reply. I think we could make something interesting here. :) Abyssal leviathin 06:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks a lot like The Geek Code. GCS d-- s a- C++ U P-- L+ E- W++ N- o? K+ w++ O--- M-- V? PS+++ PE++ Y PGP t 5- X- R- tv++ b DI+++ D+ G e++ h+ r-- z-- Wiki++ Blaimjos 01:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Template for members

There needs to be a template which members can add to their user pages prominently displayed on this page, is there one already, or should i make one? Odessaukrain 11:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, there already is one. {{inclusionist}} Odessaukrain 11:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed quotes to talk

To me, this seems like banal quotes:

I get frustrated by people using the Google 'test' as authoritative - if the web already knew it all there would be less need for Wikipedia! — Pcb21 How depressing. I found the information I was looking for, only to discover that someone is trying to delete it. — Mark Richards as said in this email from our beloved BDFL. The Moving Finger writes: and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it. — Omar Khayyám (translation of Edward FitzGerald)

I removed these to talk, if someone disagrees, they can add it back. If someone wants to add a quotes section, they are welcome too.

I am rewriting the introduction. Currently the intro feels like a small group of close friends wrote the introduction, as illustrated in this quote "as said in this email from our beloved BDFL." I don't know BDFL, and I hazard to guess most inclusionist don't either.

I am trying to make this introduction appeal to more people.

Odessaukrain 11:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Liberal quote

I removed Wikiliberal quote from the intro:

though it's pretty clear that inclusionists here are generally Wikiliberal.

This maybe the case, but the majority of Americans consider liberal to be bad. There maybe some conservative inclusionists which maybe turned off by this statment.

Odessaukrain 12:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What does Wikiliberalism have to do with American political liberalism, exactly? How on earth could a wikiphilosophy be confused with a real-world political one? Abyssal leviathin 01:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We know the difference, but the average American equates liberal with something bad. American polticians are frightened to be associated with such word. Odessaukrain 16:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed long intro to adding article that needs immediate attention

In a continued effort to streamline and make this page more appealing to a wider audience, I removed the long intro to adding article that needs immediate attention:

Articles for Deletion (AfD) and Deletion Review pages that AIW members ought to investigate (it is a good idea to check the AfD often).

The idea is that these are votes which AIW members should be aware of, so we can read the articles and discussions and then weigh in appropriately. Please include a very brief description of who/what the article is about (though the presence of this summary does not mean that AIW members should fail to read the article itself). Odessaukrain 19:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Arrgghh... an article I wanted to read has been deleted. The Article was YouTubeMobile which had a handy list of mobile phones compatible with the H263/AMR_NB codecs YouTube uses. NOTABLE TO ME.

The problem is it's so much easier to delete an article than it is to reinstate it. I'd like to see improvements to MediaWiki such that deleted pages could be accessed (but not edited) if the user insists, and that a reinstatement process could be started - which should be no more difficult than the deletion process.

Paleo art emergency!

A small group of members of wikiproject mammals are CALLING FOR THE DELETION OF ALL PALEOART ON WIKIPEDIA! That's right, all of wikipedia's illustrations of prehistoric life! That's literally hundreds of images that were mainly contributed by a handful of extremely intelligent and knowledgeable users. This is not something that can be taken laying down. If the inclusionist philosophy means anything at all to you, please assist in the endeavor over here. Abyssal leviathin 00:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Idea: slashdot-style "browse at -1" option

Surely there's a simple answer. Let the users decide. Do it the way slashdot does, and never delete anything, merely moderate it. Then the user can decide at what level to read wikipedia. After all, some users don't want to be confused by "irrelevant" articles, while others really do want to know the details of $obscure_subject.

My suggestion is as follows:

  Normal articles are rated +2
  Articles that are controversial (inclusionist vs deletionist) get rated as 0.
  Articles that are almost universally considered complete dross get rated as -1. 

Then, the end user can choose their preference - either "See only the standard Wikipedia", or "See all articles".

I think this would neatly solve the entire problem, given that

- both inclusionists and deletionists will usually agree on the types of article that should be 0 ("is there a controversy on this article, or is it universally acknowledged to be canonical").
- if a page is total nonsense, or inappropriate (eg spam), then it can be hit with -1.

Refinement: This could also be enhanced for a +5 score (article is considered excellent), and a +1 score (article needs work).

Advantage: this is a simple technical solution to a discussion which will otherwise never be resolved. It should keep everyone happy, and preserve the maximum choice for the reader.

Interesting Article Deleted

I wrote an article that I thought was a halfway decent one, and it was deleted for a reason I still don't get. It was called Blethen, Brainerd, and the Rise of the Seattle Times. Can someone try and help me get it back without getting it deleted again? Hi878 21:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You can ask the some admin to provide you the content, if it is not deleted for copyright violation. You may create a sandbox page to develop the article, then republish. If you need further assistance just ask. 85.102.40.97 12:27, 12 June 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 03:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

a battle

"This is a battle, a war, and the casualties could be your hearts and souls. Armies of 'academics' going forth, measuring poetry. NO! We won't have any of that here." --Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society Artemis84 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ArticleAlley Needs Rescue

• Need help. [4] needs rescue. wanted to put the rescue tag on myself, but thought I'd better wait. Thanks