Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/AfD

message: What a ridiculous thing this is. As an inclusionist, I don't vote in a kneejerk fashion about anything, and I consider myself somewhere in the center on the school issue (I abstain from most cases; if I vote, I prefer that articles on small schools get deleted and large ones kept). This RFC is generalizing to the point of absurdity, and even if it wasn't generalizing, it'd still be absurd, because everyone has a right to express an opinion in the debates even if you think they're voting for the wrong reason. Everyking 14:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

message: If this isn't just about the schools, please provide evidence from AfDs not pertaining to articles about schools. Acetic'Acid 03:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Alphax τεχ 04:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Acetic'Acid 21:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools 

message: I placed this here because I am neither "outside" (as a self-confessed member of :m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians), nor do I feel that I can speak for Deletionists as a whole.
And that brings me straight to my main point, which is that this RFC paints with far to broad a brush.  If there are specific Inclusionists or Deletionists who are problematic — and I'll be he first to admit that such users exist, as I've butted heads with a few self-proclaimed Inclusionists on my own and other's AFD's myself on occasion, and seen equally misguided Deletionists in action — then those specific users should be the subject of their own RFCs, whether or not they claim membership in any meta-organization.
As evidence of the overbroadness of this RFC, I humbly submit myself.  I track my own AFDs publicly on my AfD page for transparancy, and while I am more likely to cast a delete vote to remove policy-violating articles, I have cast non-delete votes when appropriate as well (see Redir Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Femtillion, Speedy Redir Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonny M), one of which was even  a Keep vote for a school.  Further, if one of my own AFDs is kept, I continue to watch and contribute to the page, because I believe that if it can't be discarded, it must, at a minimum, not suck (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goth slang, the article, and its history).
You may rightly note that i have cast very few Keeps, perhaps only one; the reason for this is that most AFDs which I think are misguided already have sufficient Keep votes to at least force a no-consensus Keep by he time I see them: i.e., the process works, by and large.  For myself, I favor Deletionism over Inclusionism because I find the rallying cry to Wikify the sum total of human knowledge misguided at best, and a violation of policy at worst.  It has seemed to me from the beginning that obvious violation of WP:NOT should be deleted; I have chosen so far to focus on "slang and idiom guide" as I feel that if that topic is to be covered at all, it should be handled by Wiktionary (where I am also a user).  Is that disruptive?  I submit that it is not, and challenge anyone to show me how it is without using the word "censorship."
In short (too late) both Inclusionists and Deletionists come in numerous degrees and with varying agendas.  If one on either side becomes disruptive, such as by hanging around AFD and voting consistently to keep or delete regardless of the merits of the article in question, by all means bring action against that user.  This guilt-by-association tactic smells strongly of a violation of WP:FAITH itself, or perhaps merely shoddy research into user histories.  I suggest that it be retracted or reformulated to address a specific issue, rhather than an ideological phantom.  --Kgf0 00:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from a "Disciplined Deletionist"