User:LeilaniLad

In defense of Deletionism
When reading comments offered on the Deletionism article it seems that the prevailing conception is that Deletionism is little more than a call to Machiavellian vandalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. True Deletionism is born out of a desire to improve the overall quality of articles on Wikipedia.

With growing frequency Wikipedia is becoming the primary initial source for information on any subject inquired of with a search engine. As Wikipedia's referential footprint expands, the need for increased vigilance regarding the quality of material also expands proportionally. A secondary effect of this continued progression of signifigance is that the number of editors who create content without educating themselves on the most axiomatic necessities for a good article is far outstripping those whose primary goal is the success of the project as a whole. To put it more simply, as Wikipedia grows as a source to non-Wikipedians, more non-Wikipedians want to contribute.

This is not to say that the influx of new contributors is negative in and of itself. Rather that as this trend accelerates, the end result is that there is a great deal of accumulation of information with a minority of the editing populace concerned with improving the quality of the existing information. This is where the distinction needs to be made between pure editors, and 'aggregators' (distinct from Inclusionists). A pure editor tries to improve existing material, an aggregator tries to document as much information as possible with little concern for the initial quality of said information.

And there is certainly the need for both in this project, with aggregators creating the rough drafts and editors refining these drafts into articles that a non-Wikipedian could confidently use as a primary source of information. In an ideal environment there would be something close to a one-to-one ratio between these two philosophies. Unfortunately the balance has been completely upset, with aggregators overwhelmingly outnumbering pure editors. The result of this is that the scope of Wikipedia is expanding, but the quality of the average article is plummeting. There are simply not enough pure editors to keep up.

In order to give the Wikipedia populace time to adjust we need to be extremely cautious about where we spend our dwindling editorial resources. Therefore, when considering the validity of an edit or a new article we need to keep the fact that we have more information to be refined than the current editing populace is capable of processing anytime in the near future.

This begs the question of why we need to be concerned with how long it takes to improve this information. If there are no schedules, no deadlines on content, why does it matter if unverifiable articles on non-notable subject matter are created? They can always be fixed later.

It matters because Wikipedia has "launched" to the mainstream world. Many people are using Wikipedia as a source for accurate information. While it is true that this was not the initial intention of the project, it is what the project has evolved into. And every editor who has contributed to this evolution now has an ethical responsibility to work to improve what we have. Until the community with confidence can declare that the current state of Wikipedia is good, there is no place for a true editor to create new material.

With this current state of affairs the only thing a pure editor should be doing now is attempting to stem the flow. We need to give the project time to adjust, for the new aggregators to gain enough experience to contribute as true editors. Herein enters Deletionism.

We need to spend our time refining, and yes, pruning articles until we have achieved some sort of equilibrium. And there is no time to concentrate on the minutiae. We must rather focus strictly on the three foundational principles: NOTABILITY, VERIFIABILITY, NEUTRALITY. Everything else can be debated later.

When examining articles, a Deletionist needs to consider if an article does not meet the basic requirements for notability. If so, it should be tagged for proposed deletion without hesitation. The worst that will happen is that Wikipedia will lose an insignificant article that would add to an already impossible editorial work load. Even if the article remains, the discussion on its deletion will add impetus to transforming the plethora of new editors into better equipped contributors to the project.

If when reading an article a Deletionist comes across an uncited declaration of fact, they need to weigh carefully what the average reader will take away from reading said declaration. If there is any likelihood of a significant alteration of view of the subject matter by the reader, a fact tag is not sufficient. Remove the uncited declaration with a note not to restore said declaration until a citation can be found. Your average reader will not notice or care about a comment.

There are minimum requirements for notability, and many articles attempt to disguise the subject’s lack of notability with “weasel citations”. A weasel citation is original research citing a primary source. For example, a declaration on the motivation of a character in a novel that sites the novel itself is pure original research and should be removed. Another form of a weasel citation is a citation to a blog/personal homepage.

Lastly a Deletionist, and all editors, need to keep one fact at the forefront of their mind, as it is commonly forgotten and is important now, more than ever: '''Wikipedia is not for the editors. Wikipedia is for the reader'''.