Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From reading the arguments presented by both sides of the debate, the keep arguments were much more convincing overall. The issues that were presented by the people who adovated for the article deletion has been mostly addressed or irralevent, at least in version I read at the time of AfD closure. The article passes WP:SELF and WP:OR by my interpretations, which were the majority of the deletion arguments were based on, therefore, there is a stronger consensus towards the keep, if the strength of the arguments are considered. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:SYNTH, WP:ASR. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a NN self-reference. Mayalld (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a self-reference under the definition of WP:ASR, which specifically states that article about communities (or Wikipedia in particular) are acceptable. And the claim that something which has been discussed as significant within media outlets like NPR and the Telegraph is laughable. Tarinth (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Keep - the article is about the fact that a controversy exists, which has been noted as an important phenomena by major media sources such as National Public Radio and The Telegraph (which are surely verifiable sources used as reference material in the article). The risks and consequences of the controversy have been observed by these media sources, as well as scholarly sources (also included in the article). I'll also note that the time between the publishing of this article and the time it took to even nominate it for deletion was less time than the editor could have even listened to one of the important pieces of source material, which was the recording of the NPR program on this subject. Tarinth (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a speedy keep in any way, if you read what that page says. Also going on your userpage, it worries me that this may be vulnerable to breaches of WP:NPOV and possibly WP:SOAP - just to be totally honest. Still, I'd like to see more consensus on this. For a precedent of a referenced article which I put to AfD immediately after its creation was Articles for deletion/Myspace invites and out of control parties and the community ended up agreeing with me on the whole. It doesn't quite meet ASR, but it's still ASR-ish and possibly redundant to other articles.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My personal thoughts on the subject are transparent. Nevertheless, the article isn't written as either a soapbox or as a point-of-view article, and would welcome any further editing on it to provide more information.  Just because a subject is uncomfortable to some editors doesn't mean the fact that a controversy legitimately exists (and has been covered by the media) should be censored. Tarinth (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as we generally avoid self-reference. Maybe there's room for a sentence or two on this in the Criticism of Wikipedia article, but not an article of its own.  As an aside, I wrote an essay of my own on this topic about a year ago (see User:Starblind/DeletionWars )... userspace rather than article space is definitely the place for this sort of thing.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't appropriate for userspace because it is not an essay, but a discussion of the controversy as has been observed by the media. It would not belong in the Criticism article you mentioned, because the article is about the fact that a controversy exists--and the article isn't framed as criticism, but merely the phenomena.  Tarinth (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That argument serves only to remind us, yet again, that "Criticism of &hellip;" articles are inherently non-neutral. You consider yourself unable to add content from external analyses of Wikipedia to an article that presents external analyses of Wikipedia, because you think that it doesn't fit within the "Criticism of &hellip;" article's slanted and negative point of view. Let's not pretend that this is a discussion of anything other than Wikipedia alone, by the way.  Even our own meta-discussions don't make mention of any projects other than Wikipedia.  I've yet to see Wikibooks or Wikiquote discussed as having these by anyone, for example. As such, the fact that you are unable to add content on differences amongst editors of Wikipedia to Wikipedia, or to one of its summary-style sub-articles, says that our articles aren't structured correctly.  It doesn't mean that we should claim that there's some phenomenon independent of Wikipedia.  That's original research, given that there are no sources in existence, not even stuff that Wikipedia editors have written about themselves, documenting an independent and general phenomenon. Uncle G (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm an inclusionist, but I'm going to have to be deletionist here... Sean MD80 talk 15:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have a reason, or merely making an ironic point? Tarinth (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:ASR, a guideline, seems geared chiefly towards avoiding the assumption that readers of Wikipedia articles are reading them on Wikipedia or are familiar with the nature of our lucubrations.  I don't see that here.  This article is about notice that has been taken in the non-Wikipedia world about our "inclusionists" and "deletionists".  I didn't really see any original research or synthesis here; the positions discussed in this article are in fact discussed in the sources, and no non-article-space material is linked in this text, though it is linked in some of the stories quoted as sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added another reference (USA Today) that has discussed the controversy. Tarinth (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems to me that this meta-discussion deserves its place on WP. In support of the Inclusionists, I'd like to say that it does not make sense to delete ANY well-written content, irrelevant as it might seem to some persons. After all, is that not an advantage of an electronic encyclopedia? We do not have a hard limit on the number of pages we can print. So, why this hurry to hack and slash work that people obviously put a lot of work into? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.134.181 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a place for meta-discussion, and have had since 2001. It is, unsurprisingly, called Meta.  It's had Deletionism and Inclusionism since 2003, and Mergism and Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies since 2004.  "It's a meta-discussion." has not been a valid reason for having an article in Wikipedia's main article namespace for nigh on seven years, now.  Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For a prior AFD discussion of a very similar article, see . Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article you're referring to wasn't referenced with reliable sources; this one is. The topic is something of interest outside Wikipedia itself.  And with due respect to the keep voter from 129.21.134.181, the overall point is well-taken (although this article isn't a meta-discussion at all, but an article on a subject well-documented by secondary sources. Tarinth (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tarinth. --Explodicle (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep In addition to the fact that reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to satisfy the Wikipedia notability standard, the mere fact that there are people who created this article and believe it should be retained, while there are others who demand that the article be deleted, is ample evidence of a deep, fundamental and notable split in our community. This is a very real issue that has real-world consequences that has been thoroughly documented in the real world; this is not a "meta" issue. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As you say, this is a split in "our community" [your words]; does that mean that we have to inflict this internal conflict onto the wide world? Let's just step back for a second and think about what is and what isn't imporant in the real wide world.  Yes, Wikipedia is imporant; it is (we hope) a respectable and valuable source of information.  Is every single conflict that occurs within the Wikipedia community equally important?  The answer is a clear no.  Every Internet community or organization (say, Microsoft, Google, Slashdot, Facebook, Flickr etc. etc.) will have its own fair share of internal controversies; none of these controversies are encyclopedic topics.  The fact that we are Wikpedia does not mean that our internal conflicts should have preference over all the other conflicts that happen in the digital world. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - this is one of the highest-profile controversies in the media. I'm an inclusionist myself, and I frankly think the fact that this article was nominated (and quickly) for AfD is the strongest evidence possible that its contents are both true and noteable. --Arcanios (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? The fact that somebody nominated this article for AfD is a good evidence  that "its contents are both true and noteable"?  So, whenever someone nominates something for XfD, that is a good evidence that the content is both true and notable??? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand me. This is not true for any AfD article, but for this one it is, because deletion is precisely what it is about. The discussion here and in the media shows clearly that the topic is noteable. The notability standard for a controversy must obviously be how many people care. And lots of people care about this one - on both sides of the matter. --Arcanios (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Strong" Comment. I started this AfD, but don't you think we should consider merging this content? I never 'voted' delete in the first place...--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you submitted this article to "Articles for Deletion"? If you wanted to propose a merge or a rename, then the palce to have done that would best be in the article's talk page, not here. Among the issues you cited as justifications for deletion, the multiple reliable sources address WP:NOR and WP:N. I see no WP:SYNTH issues, nor have they been specified. You also listed WP:ASR as a justification, which some of our delete voters have also latched onto. The problem is that Self-references to avoid clearly indicates that articles about Wikipedia are perfectly acceptable as long as the article is written "in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia", a standard that this article satisfies. The deeper question -- at the heart of the deletionist/inclusionist controversy discussed here in the article -- is why the only alternative option to keeping an article is deleting it? Why are the alternative options of improve, expand, move out of namespace or merge not considered as viable alternatives to deletion, the most disruptive possible option? Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If your thoughts were simply that you thought the article should be merged, that discussion is normally held in the talk pages of the article in question. An AfD is for deletion (historically, a "merge" vote in an AfD is equivalent to "keep", albeit with a strong suggestion that it be merged...)  Nevertheless, while we're on the subject: no, I do not believe there's an article that exists that this can be merged to.  As Uncle G noted, the "Criticism of" articles suggest an underlying tone; and in fact, this article is not a criticism or summary of criticism of Wikipedia, it is merely documenting a well-discussed phenomena.  Furthermore, the subject itself is large and significant enough that it exists as a notable topic on its own... If you look at any of the several sources provided, almost their entire content deals with this specific subject (and not vague criticism or analysis of Wikipedia in general). Tarinth (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't object to a merger if someone could do it appropriately, but I do not believe this AfD should be withdrawn. I brought it here for discussion. I'm leaning towards delete, but if someone could suggest an appropriate place to merge this, then I might support that. Still, at the moment, I'd favour deletion. There are many, many Wikipedia-related things like this which we don't have articles on in the main namespace. What about articles about WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV? I'm sure these could be written with reference to third-party sources, but they're not necessary.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question is simply that National Public Radio, The Telegraph, USA Today and Harvard Business School are not primarily talking about subjects of minor interest such as the alphabet soup of WP policies...They're talking about the deletionist vs. inclusionist controversy. If they *did* start talking about those subjects to the same extent as this one--then by all means, they'd deserve their own mainpage articles as well.  This subject is large enough and garnering enough attention that it demands its own article, and there's no other appropriate place for it (I'd be open to a rename if someone has a better idea, but that discussion can happen on its talk page). Tarinth (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, 100%. WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument for deletion, nor does WP:IDONTLIKEIT carry any weight. This article as it stands needs to be addressed and this article provides real-world reliable and verifiable sources from prominent national publications covering the issue. If you can find any corresponding references to WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV, they might be subjects for articles, and I will be more than happy to support your creation of such articles once the needed sources are available. This is a real-world notable subject for an article. One has to love the irony of seeing the article's subject played out right here at an AfD nomination submitted ten minutes after the article was created. Ah, the folly's of deletionism, which can be best enjoyed if you appreciate the entertainment value. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The conflict between inclusionists and deletionists on Wikipedia has received substantial coverage, properly referenced in the article, in USA Today, National Public Radio, The Telegraph, Canadian paper National Post and the Harvard Business School. This easily satisfies WP:N and WP:V. This is not original research and it is not a metadiscussion among editors. The fact that somewheere on Wikipedia editors discuss something has no bearing on whether a referenced article about the subject is also appropriate. This short article probably in the top 25% of Wikipedia articles in terms of having multiple independent and reliable references with substantial coverge. We needn't attempt to hide disputes within the Wikipedia comunity from public scrutiny, when they are widely covered in the world's newspapers and broadcast media. It clearly is not a candidate for merger to a "Criticisms of Wikipedia" article or section, since the references and the text do not single out either philosophy as deficient. This could be a section in the main article, so separately from this AFD there could be a merger proposal. Edison (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, I do not think this deserves a separate encyclopedic entry. If you think you can sensibly merge this into something, either into Wikipedia or Criticism of Wikipedia or anything like that, you're welcome; but on its own this just isn't an encyclopedic article. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For a possible merger target, just add a section with the same title as this article. I think it is an important factor in determining whether Wikipedia is a collection of everything verifiable that anyone chooses to write about, or whether there is a threshold for encyclopedic notability. Such a section wouild improve the Wikipedia article. I speak as someone who is neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist. Edison (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am an inclusionist and deletionists stress me out. The fact that this split in wiki is documented is interesting to me.Skip1337 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes? You haven't addressed why this is an encyclopedic topic.  Yes, "it is interesting to you."  Perhaps this can be kept somewhere in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, but this is certainly not an encyclopedic article. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia defines an Encyclopedia as "a great comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge" - so how is this article "not enclyclopedic"? Skip1337 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete - This controversy between deleting and including articles on the encyclopedia represents an internal conflict that has no real world applicability. That real world sources may report on the machinations of the deletion do not give the debate any real world relevance. It should be moved as an essay to the Wikipedia namespace and referenced better to the information on deletionists and inclusionists presented on Wikimedia. That way the information survives for those it is relevant to and we can sidestep the brutal irony about deletionists and inclusionists arguing to delete or include an article about themselves. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The way it's written now replicates most of the material at Meta Wiki. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never actually read the Inclusionism page, so no bias here. Your observation that they're similar probably means the sources are doing a good job. The article better reflect the viewpoints, or else what is it for? –Pomte 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please let's move this into the "Wikipedia:" namespace and be done with it. It's just not an encyclopedic topic, not by any definition of a "general knowledge encyclopedia" (such as Wikipeida aspires to be). -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearest, obvious delete as self-reference without any real-world notability. This is navel-gazing of the most obvious and blatant kind.  Yes, we are all Wikipedians... so anything that has to do with Wikipedia seems overly inflated and important to us... but let's just step back for a moment and ask ourselves a question: is this really an encyclopedic topic?  And the answer is no.  Do you want to read, in an article in Encyclopedia Britannica, a description of some petty internal conflict between Britannica editors?  No.  Publishing these internal conflicts and controversies as if this was something that the wide world cared about, is an absolutely unacceptable exaggeration of one's imporance, that testifies to a grave lack of perception of the true scale of importance of things as they are in the real world. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "as if this was something that the wide world cared about"?!?! Take a look at the article and the sources. Multiple independent reliable sources say that this debate is notable and has real-world importance. Apparently, the real world's "grave lack of perception of the true scale of importance of things" includes coverage of Wikipedia by such entities as USA Today, BusinessWeek, National Public Radio, and even Der Spiegel has covered the topic, as has Harvard Business School, all the textbook definitions of the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." required by WP:N and abundantly satisfied. WP:ASR forbids references from Wikipedia's perspective and in no way excludes articles about Wikipedia. The irony only grows. Alansohn (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you really think that this topic is encylopedic, then how about merging this (or somehow incorporating this information) into the main Wikipedia article? Do you really think this deserves a separate article?  As I said above, almost every popular website or internet community will have its own fair share of controversies; most of them only deserve a passing mention in the corresponding main articles.  Just because this is Wikipedia, and this article is about something that has to do with Wikipedia, it does not mean that this really deserves coverage in a separate article. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I really do believe this is encyclopedic. An I really think this deserves its own article. Notability of the article's subject is satisfied. If you believe a merge would be appropriate, you are free to revise your vote to delete. I am more than happy to support additional articles for other controversies on other websites, as long as they can demonstrate a comparable level of real-world relevance and reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I understand why people are uncomfortable with this article.  I remain convinced that the article should stay, because it does seem adequately demonstrated that our internal processes have become the subject of controversy and discussion outside the internal forum.  It could be argued that this is a case to invoke ignoring "notability" rules; editing controversies maybe shouldn't be made article subjects, even if they are subject to studies and opinion pieces by external sources.  Still, plenty of articles already contain similar material.  Part of some people's discomfort might be remedied by moving this to a more transparent title, like Controversy regarding appropriate content in Wikipedia.  "Inclusionist" and "deletionist" are insider jargon, and it does sound a little bit like the war between Big-Endians and Little-Endians.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Sure there is real world context. Some of the news articles that talk about deletion debates, particularly of biographies, deal with the very notions of importance and notability, which are real world issues for the subjects (think BLP). For instance, 'Even those that defended Susan's Wiki-worthiness were harsh: "Seems notable enough. At least as notable as any other second-tier author or journalist." Ouch.' You know how much effect Wikipedia has, and yet inexplicably can't see it being compatible with ASR, which specifically allows for this type of article. A merge to Criticism of Wikipedia would be improper as it's not primarily a criticism, but an aspect of the community (read the sources). A merge to Wikipedia would produce undue weight given the available info that's essential to the issue. I am in the process of improving the article. –Pomte 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * General comment. Many of those who have voted expressed their opinions above seem very familiar with many Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N etc.  I, however, very much urge everyone to step back, for a second, and just think about what this project is all about. It is about creating an encyclopedia of general knowledge.  Yes, we do have rules and guidelines about what should be included and what should not.  That does not mean that one shouldn't excercise one's common sense, at least once in a while.  And the common sense clearly tells that the internal workings of the project, including the internal controversies, are just not important enough (or not "encyclopedic enough", or not "notable enough", whichever phrase you prefer) to be inflicted onto our audience.  So, I urge everybody to consider: it this really notable?  Or do you think this is notable only because you yourself are involved with Wikipedia?  Would someone who is not involved with Wikipedia really think that this is a subject that is worthy to be included in a general-knowledge encyclopedia?  I believe that the answer to all these question is "no". --  Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You are totally ignoring WP:N in favor of your own subjective "I don't like it" standard. I suggest you go to WP:N and try modifying it, if it is not in accord with your perceptions of what belongs in an encyclopedia. If an article about a cartoon episode, a garage band, or a cell phone had references as numerous and substantive from such reliable sources, it would also be a "Keep." The sources cited in the article and discussed above are in fact external to and independent of Wikipedia, and they make the case for notability. (edited 22:19)Edison (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true that in this case I think there's something else that is more important than WP:N, but it isn't "I don't like it" -- I have never said anywhere above that I don't like this article. In fact I would quite like it, in an appropriate place -- in the Wikipedia namespace.  What I really think is that while this subject is important for us Wikipedians, it is just not an encyclopedic topic, in the wide world.  It's just a particular controvery that has to do with a particular website.  (I don't deny that this particular website is imporant, but every controversy about that website isn't). -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."  It does not say we should establish a subjective standard of what is or is not "encyclopedic." Edison (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But we are trying to write an encyclopedia here. All the rules and guidelines are secondary to that.  (Read WP:WIARM if you are interested -- and after all IAR is a policy.) -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, minor comment the title of the article doesn't even reflect the contents -- there's no mention of "Wikipedia" in the title. Apparently, whoever created the article just thought that would be obvious -- which, of course, just goes to show the over-inflated opinion about Wikipedia that some editors here hold. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A redirect to a title including Wikipedia can be done when the AFD is complete, if it is kept. I agree it would be an improvement. The refs knock down WP:N as a reason for deletion. The fact that "inclusionism versus deletionism in Wikipedia" was precisely the subject given substantial coverage in each of the references demolishes the deletion argument based on WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. WP:ASR "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" and is not an excuse to sweep under the rug disputes and issues within the Wikipdeia community when they are discussed in major news media. Wikipedia is not censored to pretend that we are unanimous in all decisions about content. (edited 22:28)Edison (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Wikipedia is not censored, yes there's no excuse to sweep disputes and issues under the rug, but likewise there is no excuse to inflate the disputes over what they really are, and to make them into encyclopedic topics when they realy aren't. As I said many times above, move this to Wikipedia namespace, and be done with it. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history, the author described this as pertaining to all wiki communities. But hey, guess what, the sources found so far are about Wikipedia. –Pomte 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Clarifications are in order.  At the time of nomination, the lead sentence read "The Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy is a case of factionalism within wiki-communities, most notably Wikipedia". Current lead sentence reads "Inclusionist and deletionism are opposing philosophies in Wikipedia" etc., which is slightly different.  If someone can really demonstrate real-world notability of deletionist/inclustionist controversies in all wiki-communities, not just Wikipedia, then there may be something salvageable.  However, if it's really only about internal Wikipedia mechanisms, than it's just navel-gazing, I'm sorry to say. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a huge information resource accessed by hundreds of millions; in that respect, the controversy is just as important as many others that exist within the Web space. *That* is the reason why this subject has garnered extensive media attention. If anything, the votes for deletion here are a form of bias based on the fact that it pertains to Wikipedia itself.  (And for the record, I'm the original author of the article in question, and I did start with a broader definition of the subject--and I agree that the broader definition isn't well-supported by the sources; the article has already been improved in this respect, and that's precisely what should happen--not a deletion.) Tarinth (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Tarinth: (1) "Wikipedia is a huge information resourse": not exactly; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information; there are good reasons about which subject is encyclopedic and which is not; internal topics are not encyclopedic. (2) Regarding "broader definintion": I am aware that the original definition was broad, see my reply above. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What does hair-splitting over the definition of it being an encyclopedia (true) versus an information resource (also true, by very definition of what an encyclopedia is) have to do with the subject of notability? Hundreds of millions of people access it, so the socio-political process that govern it become of interest to many people, just as any organization that touches the lives of so many--which is precisely why the LA Time, USA Today, etc. all thought it worth writing articles about.  Deleting this article would simply be applying a bizarre double-standard merely because it deals directly with Wikipedia; any other form of factionalism that got that much media attention would easily qualify for an article on WP. Tarinth (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The very day that USA Today, BusinessWeek, National Public Radio, Der Spiegel and Harvard Business School all write substantial coverage of any of us gazing at navels, it will become a notable subject for a Wikipedia article. See WP:N.  Edison (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's just be sensible... there are many notable websites out there. Google (of course), Microsoft, Yahoo, whatever... then there's MySpace and Facebook... and YouTube, of couse... and many many others... and ther's Digg... and flickr... and many more...  and suppose there's some farily minor internal conflict going on on one of these websites... does it deserve a separate Wikipedia article?  Even if it gets some coverage in news sources?  Let me tell you straight, not every news story is an encyclopedic article . -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a significant controversy that is the subject of multiple international newspapers, magazines and broadcast media would qualify for an article, particularly for a subject like this that is likely to be a matter of enduring importance. WP:N and WP:V establish the criteria for notability, and this article is way, way, way above that bar. Tarinth (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A controversy  involving Google, Microsoft  and Yahoo was their reported compliance with policies of the Chinese government which run counter to free speech. It received coverage and legislation in the U.S. is pending. Yes, that deserves inclusion either in the articles about the companies or in a stand alone article, if multiple reliable sources give it substantial coverage. And Google as well as Google News does not prevent people from reading articles which talk about Google and issues related to it. Edison (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't about to complain further, but this just can't pass unnoticed. Surely you can't compare the Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/whatever conflict with the Chinese government (which raises the all-imporant questions of free speech, liberty, democracy, freedom of doing business, free trade, etc.) and a small, petty and entirely internal conflict between a group of Wikipedian "inclusionists" and Wikipedian "deletionists"?  This sort of comparison makes absolutely no sense!!! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ekjon--this is just your subjective opinion on what you feel is important. I don't agree that this is primarily an "internal" (and apparently neither did numerous scholars or journalists).  It shouldn't come as a surprise that the governance of the most popular non-profit virtual community in the world would be at least as popular as the legal issues surrounding government-to-corporate interactions. Tarinth (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but it's still our prerogative to organize information as we see appropriate -- sometimes something definitely deserves a separate article; sometimes, however, some information is not significant enough to merit a separate article, but definitely deserves mention in the main article. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, how about merging this content into English Wikipedia (note: not Wikipedia, but " English Wikipedia "). At the time of writing, all individual-language Wikipedias seem to have their own articles...  and the current inclusionist/deletionist controversy is exclusively concerned with the English Wikipedia (other-language Wikipedias have their own inclusion criteria, their own controversies, and their own communities).  But the "English Wikipedia" article is pretty thin at the moment... surely it could benefit from some well-sourced content! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A discussion regarding that could be held once the AfD is completed. Are you now suggesting a keep?  (For what it's worth, I think the article is too long and too specific to become simply a part of an article on Wikipedia in general, and the article also has information from at least one German source).  The English Wikipedia article already has a practice of externally referencing significant controversies, such as the Seigenthaler_controversy.  Surely a general article with the level of coverage this one has received should also have its own entry? Tarinth (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A merge is not the same as keep. I was never against a merge, in fact I advocated a proper merge in the beginning.   The question is, what to merge to?  Either Wikipedia (documenting wide-range controversies) or English Wikipedia (documenting controversies involving English-language Wikipedia) are acceptable solutions to me. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To Tarinth: Look here, since you're the author of the original version, can you re-write the article in such a way that it clearly references different wikis in general and not just Wikipedia? If this controversy is just something within Wikipedia community then it's pretty minor and does not deserve a separate entry. If, however, this is something that is common to many wikis out there, i.e. in all wiki-communities there are inclusionists and deletionists, and there is a fierce battle between them, then perhaps you can re-write the article to document this?  This would really be a big help!  Because, in this case, the "navel-gazing" argument would not apply -- but it's up to you to provide the arguments and/or sources!!!   Best regards, Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, relax. The article has been undergoing major construction this entire time, and continued comments about your personal standards don't help. Come back in a couple of days. –Pomte 00:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea all right don't worry! I'm willing to wait any time, remember there's no deadline.  But, as it happens, it's not about my personal standards -- it's about my ideas about what is an encyclopedia!  (I have no problems if other users have different notions -- I respect that.)  Cheers! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete – primarily original research synthesis and possible huge conflict of interest due to the fact that the creator and majority contributor is a self-labeled rabid inclusionist (per his user page). -- slakr \ talk / 00:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What has been synthesized that is not stated in the sources? Is he really majority contributor (have you checked diffs)? I'm wondering how you have concluded that such problems can't be fixed. –Pomte 01:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with this "logic" ( of "possible huge conflict of interest due to the fact that the creator and majority contributor is a self-labeled rabid inclusionist"), is that the article written by this so-called "rabid inclusionist" provides a rather thorough and well-balanced summary of the issue with dozens of real-world reliable sources. It's not writen from an inclusionist persepctive or from the deltionist view; it covers the topic using the ample reliable sources available. The far more logical conclusion of your concerns regarding editing philosophies being imposed by individual editors, would be that all votes from deletionists should be ignored at AfD -- here and at all other such debates -- due to their huge conflict of interest. Alansohn (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete yes it's sourced, but it's textbook example of a WP:SYNTH violation, as the article can't never go beyond biased original research. Secret account 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:SYNTH says " If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing." The sources cited in this article do explicitly reach the conclusion that Wikipedians include deletionists and inclusionists,as the article says, and they are all clearly related to the subject of the article, so this deletion argument is without merit. Edison (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - sure its controversial here, but there are sufficent WP:RS to make sure its tied to the outside world. If we are unsure of its significance, then I think it should be noted that this debate on it is now almost longer than the article itself! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And that's a good reason for keeping? I don't think so. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC) To be precise, I was replying to the notion that "this debate is almost longer than the article itself" is a reason for keeping, which of course it is not. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It meets our notability guideline and has independent sources. I have some sympathy with the view that notability should be about encyclopedic and not about sources, which really only allow us to write the article. However, that is not in the guideline, so this should be kept. If the guideline is altered, which I do not see happening any time soon, it can be brought back here and deleted. The lead however should be widened from Wikipedia. There is already a reference to Larry Sanger and Citizendium. --Bduke (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. You win.  I give up.  I will no longer be contributing to wikipedia.  Good luck to all those who still have some patience left.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekjon Lok (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not leave. Never will everybody agree with you; there is always somebody who does not share your views. But that does not mean you should give up. Be persistant! Sean MD80 talk 02:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're going to quit WP just because you can't get an article deleted that you want deleted? Threatening to quit is rarely a persuasive argument. Tarinth (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or move into project space, and merge into English Wikipedia or other articles. Note that I am typically an inclusionist, but these Wikipedia "philosophies" are hardly notable or well defined - a few mentions in reliable media and a few studies does not make it sufficiently important that we attempt to document internal dynamics in an encyclopedic manner. In my opinion, this is great content to be included in Wikibook 'Wikipedia'. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete self-referencing article which doesn't belong on the mainspace.--Jersey Devil (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, merge (and shorten), or move to projectspace. The first few sentences attempt to make it sound like this is a widespread wiki/internet issue but the rest of the article is all about Wikipedia. It goes into unnecessary detail about the mechanics of deletion discussions (AFD, DRV, redirecting) and some minor essays on meta. Mr.  Z- man  03:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The only part of the article that implies the issue could be widespread is a phrase in the first sentence, and I added it only to potentially expand the scope based on comments above. The "unnecessary" detail provides context and is relevant to the issue; imagine a reader who doesn't know Wikipedia processes. Your labeling them "minor" essays on meta is not compatible with the attention put on them by reliable sources. –Pomte 16:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or move to project space. This isn't an appropriate encyclopedia topic, but I wouldn't mind it in the project space.  Just because there are sources for it does not make it an appropriate encyclopedia topic, which IMO it is not. VegaDark (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to project space or delete. I can't see how this is notable. SQL Query me!  04:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Anything covered by a number of respected media sources merits its own writeup on this site. For those who argue that this subject would not be covered in Encyclopedia Brittanica: If Brittanica were a compendium of nine billion pages and counting and was constantly updated every second of every day with news events from all over the world, then I'm pretty certain this subject would be covered. Just as I can't imagine Brittanica covering something like that, I also can't imagine a Brittanica comprising nine billion pages. Wikipedia is not your typical encylopedia. --Mynabird (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if it did have one, it wouldn't have any bearing on this discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if Britannica sparked a controversy that garnered international media coverage in reliable sources like USA Today, the LA Times, Der Spiegel, National Post, Business Week, The Telegraph, The Inquirer, IDG's CIO magazine and the Washington Post; plus scholarly research on the specific subject from Harvard Business School and the Journal of the American Society of Information Science -- not to mention the tens of thousands of posts on the very subject within the blogosphere from sources as noted as TechCrunch on down; then I'd say that yes, in that case a Britannica-related controversy would be notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. (for those who are still confused with what constitutes notability, I recommend reading WP:N so that you may present a better argument on what you feel constitutes notability or "encyclopedic content" that is unaffected by your subjective judgments on what you like or find interesting.) Tarinth (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On the record, "Britannica does not suffer the same issues and criticism, but I suspect this is due to their selection process happening behind closed doors." –Pomte 12:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Mergism Viewpoint. This debate should probably either be a) covered in appropriate article(s) on Wikipedia, its community and criticism of thereof, or b) expanded to cover more of the debate, and also expanded to cover our other "isms". Since the other isms probably do not generate media debate and these articles generally seem oh so horribly navel-gaze-y, I think the choice a) is more appropriate. However, I'm not terribly against keeping the article as is; I just think merging is probably more fruitful. This is not about a single incident, but rather an issue that has been, and will be, an integral debate, and as such covering them in articles about the site is justified and right. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any consensus on where it could be merged to. The article is now fairly longand distinct (significantly improved relative to the AfD, which happened while it was still in the process of being built...) The article is not about criticism of Wikipedia.  The fact that these factions exist is well-documented and has received significant attention.  This article explains the fact of these factions, the controversy, the background, and significant cases within the media.  Even if there was an appropriate place to merge it, we're quite far from consensus on where that would be--and that would best be done in the talk pages of this article, and the talk pages of the potential targets.  It certainly wouldn't fit in a "Criticism of..." article, and if placed in the main articles on Wikipedia or English Wikipedia it would take up too much space (although a brief synopsis with a link to this article is entirely appropriate, similar to how the Wikipedia article currently deals with the Seigenthaler_controversy.) Tarinth (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A merge into English Wikipedia would be anglocentric; consider all the links to meta and the non-English publications. –Pomte 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about my usual chainsaw-mergist viewpoint: Merge but cut the long-winded explanations. (An extreme illustration: "Inclusionists do blah[1], deletionists do bleh[1][2], there's a giant debate between these two viewpoints and it leads to a bunch of problems like zat[2][3], bleh[1][4], and qoof[1][3][5].") It's one possibility. But I definitely don't think the fate of this article needs to be decided now; We could just leave it here and maybe it will get fixed later. (Unless The Immediatists Attack&reg; =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and chainsaw a version, but I've tried to be concise. The Immediatists are attacking; notice the implication of comments here that this article can never be encyclopedic. –Pomte 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Hey look, and inclusionist voting keep. :-). Seriously, it's well sourced and important.  Hobit (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keep - Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. This has demonstrated far more real-world notability than hundreds of fiction articles. —Random832 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - If this article wasn't about Wikipedia, would there be any question at all? -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article wasn't about Wikipedia, would it even exist? LondonStatto (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia's very foundation is the precept that anyone can contibute. Deleting this article gives support to deletionists who wish to remove articles based upon thir own personal opinion of what belongs or does not belong without going through this very process to await consensus. The very fact that the article is here in Afd means that the processes that make Wiki just what it is CAN work if given a chance. This article is itself extremely useful in illustrating that process and in explaining the points of view. It does not in itself support one side or the other... simply explains the controversy. As a newcomer, I appreciate learning the views and values of both sides of both sides. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But if I didn;t edit Wikipedia, why would I care about that? Those are all excellent reasons for this to be a Wikipedia-space essay, not an article. Mr.  Z- man  02:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That argument doesn't make sense on three levels: first, it isn't an essay.  Second, people who don't edit Wikipedia apparently care about it a lot (I'd invite you to survey the source material).  Third, any topic can be described as "only of interest to people who [do something]" but that's never been a criteria for deletion. Tarinth (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep has independent, reliable sources which is the basic criterion for inclusion. For those who cite WP:ASR and those uncomfortable about seeing an article about Wikipedia, see WP:WAWI.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I heard about this first outside of Wikipedia. If real world sources decide this WP controversy has enough real world notability to write about, who are we to say different? As an impartial news source, it's not arrogant or self-centred to report on when WP is being talked about. Failing to do so would be a strangely coy ommission of our duty. Though, I do agree it should be renamed "Wikipedia's Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy" as this article is primarily about WP. The Zig (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as blatant Omphaloskepsis. LondonStatto (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Beyond the fact that WP:OMPHALOSKEPSIS is not a valid excuse for deletion of any article, Omphaloskepsis is the act of staring at your own navel = dog bites man = non-notable. When more than a dozen major national and international media organizations write articles covering the details of your belly button = man bites dog = that's notable. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If people talk about us, we're notable. If they talk about important controversies here, and think they're important, so they are. Our refusal to recognize this is COI. We're behaving like a subject of a bio who would prefer that nobody talks about him, because he's embarrassed at being notable. It's just a selfish as the other way round. DGG (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but it needs cleanup and deletion of unsourced statements.Trilobitealive (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsourced statements? This is perhaps one of the best-sourced articles that exists, with 28 references and citations for nearly everything (and things that aren't directly footnoted are rather well covered in previous citations already). Tarinth (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I found the following: "The Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians were founded by administrators.[9] Each has a page listing their respective members, charters and principles." Neither assertion was supported by any online, easily accessable reference. I'm not able to immediately verify the source cited for the first sentence nor the real online existance of the factions so don't know if the second is WP:FACT, WP:SYN, WP:HOAX or what.Trilobitealive (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The citations are right there. For the first one, it's on page 16. For the second, page 25. These page numbers are clearly documented in the citations, and both are online in PDF format. The second one is French, so you can use the translation device of your choice to verify the statement. –Pomte 18:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I can see the documentation of the assertion. But where is a plain language statement in the text that the associations are found on the Wikimedia.org and not the wikipedia.org site? Why isn't there a link similar to Association of Deletionist Wikipedians in the article? Do you see my point or not? Being a relative newby and entirely ignorant of this controversy before this last Thursday I find this most confusing. I may have to go back and edit the article to correct this.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Most definately Keep. Firstly, I would like to respond directly to the WP:CRYPTIC nomination rationale.  WP:NOR The article is supported by a huge block of external references. It cannot be purely original research. WP:N Again, many other sources have written on the subject. The issue is notable. WP:SYNTH The section of WP:NOR referenced by this particular glyph discourages the use of external sources to support an opinion not supported by, or contrary to, the original sources. As no opinion is advanced by the article (AIM:AFAICT), this cannot be a novel synthesis. <dt>WP:ASR</dt> <dd>This article obviously references Wikipedia, but it does so in an observer-neutral context. By this, I mean that the article does not refer to Wikipedia in a way that cannot be used outside of Wikipedia. If I were to take this article and post it on any other website, it would make just as much sense and would carry the same meaning. It does not contain any troublesome self-references.</dd> </dl> Secondly, I would like to respond to what I think might be the nominator's unstated rationale. Wikipedia is a significant player on the Internet and genuinely impacts the world as a whole. What may look like a trivial spat within Wikipedia really does affect the world outside of Wikipedia. The genuinely trivial events and the transient tilts in consensus can be largely ignored, but the larger motives which shape Wikipedia hold significance beyond Wikipedia. Lastly, I would like to echo the sentiment that the article in question is borderline WP:CRAP. It sorely needs improvment. Then again, it hasn't been around long enough for any significant development. For a three-day-old, it's pretty damn good. — Bigwyrm <sub style="color: #006400; line-height: 50%">watch me <sup style="color: #f64100; line-height: 50%">wake me  15:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt, DGG and Bigwyrm. But be clear, and alter the title to make clear, whether it's about English Wikipedia, or Wikis in general, or what. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to the project space Yes, we do have various issues with regards to either keeping or deleting stuff. However, I do not feel this is a topic we can cover yet in a manner that isn't just Wikipedia centric and navel-gazing. I like the suggestion to put this in the project space, and maybe give about one or two sentences in articles about the English Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but cut it down a good deal to resolve issues of original research. This has received significant news coverage and attention, so it is definitely notable. If written properly, it can avoid self-references, so this should be a reason for cleanup rather than deletion. And in response to the nominator's reason for deletion, have you read WP:CAPITALIZEDGIBBERISH? Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 02:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up Splette :) How's my driving? 02:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but re-scope to a more general title, like Philosophy of Wikipedia or something like that, which ought to include any observations made by the mainstream press regarding the perceived strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia's content policies, guidelines, and internal rhetoric. "Self-reference" is a misnomer here, one which is safely avoided by covering a topic, one relating to ourselves, with the same indifference as we would any other topic, and with the same indifference any other project would cover a topic relating to us, and by choosing our pronouns very carefully. — CharlotteWebb 18:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.