Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was Merge/redirect to meta. Many people on both sides are voting on the principle, rather than on the page. The simple fact is that this Wikiproject had all of 26 edits total since its conception over half a year ago. There is ample precedent for closing down Wikiprojects that don't actually do anything. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Inclusion
This was put up for deletion a week ago, but was kept when no one knew the vote was happening. It can hardly be considered that there is consensus to do something when no one was informed of the dispute in the first place; something which can be seen in the tiny number of votes and their unrepresentative nature. With this in mind, I speedy deleted it, but there was a consensus to undelete in the circumstances. I'm putting it back here for a fair vote - should it get kept this time, I'll have no issue with accepting any result.

Firstly, I put this here as someone who votes keep far more often than they vote delete these days. I object to this project, not because it promotes inclusionism, but because it openly aims to pervert the consensus operation of Wikipedia. If you want something done on Wikipedia, you make a case for it and convince people that it should or should not be done. You do not get a small, unrepresentative group to stack the vote out and have your way, views of the community be damned. Where the SchoolWatch project aimed to win consensus to keep something by improving the articles, this is just an exercise in vote stacking; something fundamentally anti-wiki. Both sides of the deletion-inclusion debate have been guilty of this at times (something which seems to be getting worse recently); a deletionist version of this project would be equally heinous. With this in mind, I ask that this be nipped in the bud now. For the record, here is a link to the prior vote of which I dispute the validity. Ambi 10:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I object to your objection, respectfully. (See my vote below). Are we previous voters a "nobody"?  A deletion can be reconsidered if enough people didn't notice (and have new info.)  For a keep you didn't notice, you wait and renominate.  Horribly out-of-process.  And I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist mind you, just one who respects consensus. Xoloz 18:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "A deletion can be considered if enough people didn't notice." The last MD was so bad in this respect as to be grossly unrepresentative; to anyone who doubts this, compare the voting populations. There appears to be a genuine no consensus this time, which I'll absolutely respect, although I'm very disappointed to see that this has largely split along factional lines. I had hoped that both sides would put aside their goals for a few minutes and look at whether factionalism is helpful to Wikipedia, but it appears I was overly optimistic. I'm getting very sick of having to argue with one side that articles on perfectly notable topics should be kept and written, and sick of having to try to convince the other not to treat deletion issues like the Great War of Wikipedia. It's wrecking the community and making Wikipedia a cruddy place to be working. Ambi 23:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, with respect, I find it hard to believe that you felt the immediate renomination of a keep -- not a "deletion", and they are different for the reason I outlined -- would help restore comity to WP. It seems to me, as neither a deletionist nor inclusionist, that an out-of-process speedy, followed by a out-of-process renomination has (and could only be intended to) make more people upset.  I trust your good faith, but if renewing this debate by stomping on process is something you feel likely to lead to greater amicability around here, I strongly urge you to reconsider your view. Xoloz 01:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, it was only a keep because barely anyone knew the vote was happening. Look at the difference between the two votes, and tell me seriously that something was not awry with the first one. Process is important, but there are times when it's not necessarily helpful to working together and building and encyclopedia. The speedy was done on the basis of WP:IAR and I did not object when it was undeleted. I did, however, put it back here so it could receive a fair vote, which it has. Having done this, it is quite apparent at this point that there is no consensus either way, which I'm disappointed about, but will of course respect. Ambi 04:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I tell you seriously that nothing was awry with first one (as its result is essentially confirmed), that nothing has been gained for the cause of its deletion (your cause) by an out-of-process revote, and that much has been lost for your cause, since now deletionists and inclusionists are more inflamed, and those of us who are dedicated to process are also miffed. I will certainly support the preservation of this project for at least six months, since it has now survived two MDs in a week and a half.  I now have sympathy for it, where before there was none. Xoloz 05:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant with Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete There's only one "association", "group", or "organization" in Wikipedia, and it's name is Wikipedia (sorry to be sappy). --rob 10:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete no substantial arguments David D. (Talk) 10:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * d, nn. Whatever next, we'll have encyclopedic articles? Join the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD! Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 10:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep no evidence that this project will merely "vote stack" and not attempt to "win consensus to keep something by improving the articles". I think the schoolwatch project added to the sum of knowledge on the wikipedia - this project could provide the means to do so too.--A  Y  Arktos   (Talk) 10:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The charges laid out above are spurious. "anit-wiki"??? I am sorry, but these charges that persist that somehow informing or networking to inform interested parties about ongoing votes is somehow immoral are nonsensical. The notion that voting on AfD should be left up to those who randomly happen across articles, or actively troll the AfD lists on a daily basis is "anti-wiki". There is a fundamental difference between inclusionists and deletionists in that inclusionists wish to keep and improve articles. I don't know how a project which exists for the purposes of improving and keeping articles can be "wnti-wiki". Also, the claim that "it openly aims to pervert the consensus operation of Wikipedia" seems to me to be little more than an unevidenced opinion.--Nicodemus75 10:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant with Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, and only 2 members compared with AIW's hundred+. Both members of this are also members of AIW anyway. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  11:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, no persuasive reason given by nominator, and I can't put meta projects on my watchlist. Kappa 12:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Things like this only serve to polarize, to divide, make sure that the community does not scale. Can the camps of people who want to split us into camps please stop? -  brenneman (t) (c)  12:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete I like stuff to be kept also, but a whole society pushing this? Get real! We've got over half a million articles on here... shouldn't we be working on existing articles? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, no reason for deletion. I can't imagine this is really going to do all that much damage with two members. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Let's keep AIW and ADW in Meta only. jni 14:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Project passed MD process too recently for reconsideration. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep nn cruft --SPUI (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I knew there was a vote here, thanks, so I object to Ambi's objection, and my vote intensifies from a weak to a strong. Not knowing about a debate is reason to reconsider deletion; if you don't know about a keep, you wait three months like everyone else.  I think this debate is partisan to no cause and ill-considered.  Both the "inclusionists" and the "deletionists" are entitled to a few fora/playgrounds. Xoloz 18:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This project was noted. The AIW's main page metitioned it, so if any other Wikipedians wanted to delete it, they would just go to the article, see the vote, and vote delete. This page was just created. It's function, to stop selective bias, was also stated. I view that this project needs time to grow. When given time, it will be a terrific project. Canadianism 19:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Polarizing, redundant. a ndroid 79  20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedians should be free to form whatever projects they feel are helpful to the overall project, as long as they are good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia.  I see no evidence of bad faith; you're free to ignore 'em if you don't like 'em.  This project has a different scope than the one on Meta; that's why there are two.  Unfocused 21:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, because this project has redundant scopes with Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias, both projects with considerable memberships. Tito xd (?!?) 22:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Sure, it duplicates another organization. Yes, it doesn't seem to have a point beyond vote stacking. Who cares?! Ashibaka (tock) 01:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless, irrelevant, a waste of time. Bin a.s.a.p. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]] (caint)  18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete divisive and factionalist wikiprojects. The approprate way to get things done on a Wiki is to seek consensus, not to try and abuse already-broken voting systems. --Aquillion 04:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So why try to destroy this project by abusing an already broken system rather than attempting to seek consensus? Kappa 14:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Thelb 4  10:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with Rob and Aaron. The Wikipedia namespace is not to be used to promote partisanship, but (surprisingly) actually to promote community and encyclopedia-writing. Dmcdevit·t 09:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, obsolete with existing associations and doesn't focus on creating an encyclopedia or promoting Wikilove. - Mgm|(talk) 14:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as the AFD process remains as broken as it is now, this project should remain. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-11-6 19:04
 * Question: I admit I don't pay much attention to these sorts of things, but doesn;t this really belong in meta? And won't keeping this allow the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians as well as their inclusionist/mergest/etc brethren to move into to WP namespace? -R. fiend 19:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete WikiProject Inclusion. How ironic! Inclusionists should be allowed to form an organization to try to encourage other Wikipedians to keep articles, but the group already exists at Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. There is no need for this "local chapter." --TantalumTelluride 05:34, 7 November 2005 (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.