User:Robert McClenon/Volunteer Roles and Deletion Discussions

Different Volunteer Roles, and Deletion Discussions
Different volunteer editors in Wikipedia contribute to the encyclopedia in different ways, many of which are important to maintaining quality. Deletionism and inclusionism are real attitudes by editors, but a naïve use of AFD statistics is likely to be misleading, because different ways of contributing to the encyclopedia will necessarily result in different AFD statistics. Because there are approximately one hundred articles nominated for deletion in a typical day, very few editors are "AFD specialists". Most editors who either contribute to AFD discussions or nominate articles for deletion do so in the course of their regular Wikipedia support. For instance, editors who primarily work with a particular WikiProject may follow that project's list of articles for deletion and contribute to its AFD nominations. Editors who work on music projects may contribute to the frequent AFDs concerning whether songs are notable or should be redirected to albums or artists, and whether albums should be redirected to artists. Scientific WikiProjects, where human knowledge is slowly expanding, may be less involved in deletion discussions.

In particular, editors who work the New Page Patrol are the first line of defense against spam and other types of crud. They will encounter articles that should not be in Wikipedia, some of which can be tagged for speedy deletion, but some of which will require nomination for deletion, and will either nominate them for deletion, or will !vote Delete on those nominated by other New Page Patrol volunteers. Deletionism and inclusionism are real attitudes by editors, but naively trying to identify an editor as a deletionist or an inclusionist based solely on their AFD record will be misleading.

Editors who work on the New Page Patrol are likely normally to !vote for deletion because they are keeping the encyclopedia free of crud. Labeling editors as deletionists based primarily on AFD statistics may be misguided. Labeling editors as inclusionists based primarily on their AFD statistics is also likely to be mistaken.