User:Elaragirl/articles/Wikipedia is not toilet paper

Yes, more deletionist screed.

Overview

I hear the phrase, all too often.

"Wikipedia is not paper, so there isn't a reason not to include this."

That, without a doubt, is the single most idiotic reason to keep content in WP that I have ever heard, or even concieve of. The original meanin of WP:NOT PAPER was so that people would not bitch moan complain comment on the length of some articles, or that some articles weren't important enough to get into the encyclopedia. Indeed, we have an entire series of excellent articles on things you would never find in another encyclopedia.

Pokemon. World Series trivia. Lists of computer game characters. Intricate semi-walled gardens of scientific definitions that give normal people nose bleeds. And so forth.

But some people can't leave well enough alone, it seems, and they use the cry of Wikipedia is not paper to suggest that anything can/should/must be included in Wikipedia.

ANYTHING.

Garage band six people have heard of? It might be of interest to someone, they say.

Inclusionism as an ideal

I understand (after drinking several shots of hard liquor and beating my head against the table for a few minutes to kill some brain cells) the goals and ideals of inclusionism. Basically, that any article can be improved, such as the standard of WP:HEY, and so deletion should be reserved for only the most outrageously slanderous,unsourced, badly written articles. Articles so bad that they would get you shot in outrage by a Deletionist. Articles so bad that in some cases you can't even figure out what the fuck the article is talking about.

In an ideal world, that would be fine. In a world with no vandals, no idiots, and no 13 year olds who think it's cool to put the name of their friends into the Main Page, this would be acceptible.

But we don't live in that world. The more articles you add, the less each article can be paid attention to. And let us be honest: the reason that notability, verifiability and relevance are important since without those, no one who doesn't have an interest in the article will find a reason to take an interest. Which usually leads to a lack of NPOV. If the only people who write an article about (insert non-notable piece of shit garage band here) are the fans, how can the article have an NPOV?

Deletionist Versions of Policy

Speedy Deletion - No sources: "Any article lacking reliable, verifiable sources may be speedily deleted at any time. Articles created without appropiate sourcing should be automatically deleted via bot. It is the responsbility of the article's creator to provide initial sources (at least ONE) for any article created. Users who routinely created unsourced articles may be considered vandals and banned."

WP:NOT PAPER " Wikipedia is not toilet paper. Please stop deficating your Cleveland Steamer and Creepy pervert guy articles onto it. Find a toilet.

An insurmountible gulf

Some people do not get it. Some quotes that illustrate my point. (Some are funny. Some make me want to fucking cry and look for the nearest hot poker so I can stop having to SEE this unending inclusionist train wreck.)

This section is all quotes:

• Delete, salt to taste - only on Wikipedia could you have a list like this. Now, let's wait for the inevitable Inclusionist to suggest this is a valuable learning resource. --Shrieking Harpy

Not ten minutes later...

• Weak Keep It could be a good article if sources could be added, which would be easy to do. A bit of tidying would make it right. scope_creep

  Um... Sources? Since when do people come out and say "WE'RE DISGUISING THE WORD FUCK SUCKAS!!!"? -Amarkov

  Christ, Scope, I wasn't serious with my comment about Inclusionists you know. --Shrieking Harpy

  You mean, you didn't honestly think that would happen? Odd. -Amarkov