User talk:Causa sui/deletionism

Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles - Wikipedia is not as complete as you appear to suggest. Pcb21| Pete 12:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If those statistics are correct, it makes me wonder why most of the pages I see coming up when I do RC patrol are nonsense and vanity. You'd think I would be seeing a lot more good articles. But I don't. Point being, Wikipedians need to be aware of the fact that -- and you can take whatever perspective you want on how close we are to this point -- eventually, the rate at which bad articles are being created will outstrip the good articles being created, because the "low hanging fruit" have all been picked.

I happpen to think that time is now, but that's really just a meta-debate. What I'm trying to get people here to accept is that there will come a time in Wikipedia's future where article creation will continue at a rapid pace, but a majority of those articles will be junk. And we need to be willing to deal with that. --malathion ^talk 10:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your "critical mass" argument, it seems to entail that once historical articles are completed, it is time to close the book on new entries. But one of Wikipedia's strengths is being able to rapidly disseminate new information; notable events occur, more people are becoming famous, and terms and concepts are being invented to describe new noteworthy ideas -- all of which warrant inclusion. This doesn't really break your criteria for speedy deletion argument... just something to keep in mind. --John Hubbard 12:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the book be closed. I'm suggesting that the reigns be tightened. Generally, this piece I wrote makes sense to other people who have done new page patrol, and people who haven't blow it out of proportion. If you look at the articles that are actually being created, a solid 50% of them are junk. There should be no need for VfD to have to deliberate on obvious junk. But that's the situation we're in. --malathion ^talk 10:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: you say at the bottom that you endorse the view of (arch-inclusionist) The Cunctator. This is completely at odds with the deletionist view point you espouse earlier on. Pcb21| Pete 13:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review that again, thanks. It's possible that his page was edited since I posted the link. --malathion ^talk 10:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read it again, and I still endorse it. --malathion ^talk 10:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way historical articles are anywhere near complete. Just have a look at something like List of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad precursors. --SPUI (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my response to Pcb21 at the top of this page. --malathion ^talk 02:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I found this after clicking on your deletionism definition in the Snowspinner RFC. I think you've made some great points, and would like to add the suggestion that amending the WP:CSD to give more leeway is the proper path. The main reason I endorse this is that there is already a remedy in place for a theoretical 'speedy delete abuse' situation, and that process is being demonstrated in the form of the aformentioned RfC. As admins are held to a standard that can be enforced, the checks and balances are already there. Thanks for the analysis, I believe I may identify myself as a deletionist as well following the spirit of your post. - Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]