Inclusionism

Community: Anti-wiki; Conflict-driven view; False community; Wikiculture; Wikifaith
The Wiki process: The wiki way; Darwikinism; Power structure; Wikianarchism; Wikibureaucracy; Wikidemocratism; WikiDemocracy; Wikidespotism; Wikifederalism; Wikihierarchism; Wikimeritocracy; Wikindividualism; Wikioligarchism; Wikiplutocracy; Wikirepublicanism; Wikiscepticism; Wikitechnocracy
Collaboration: Antifactionalism; Factionalism
Social: Exopedianism; Mesopedianism; Metapedianism
Overall content structure: Transclusionism; Antitransclusionism; Categorism; Structurism
Encyclopedia standards: Deletionism; Delusionism; Exclusionism; Inclusionism; Precisionism; Precision-Skeptics
Notability: Essentialism; Incrementalism
Article length: Mergism; Separatism
Measuring accuracy: Eventualism; Immediatism
Miscellaneous: Antiovertranswikism; Mediawikianism; Post-Deletionism; Transwikism; Wikidynamism; Wikisecessionism; Redirectionism

čeština (cs) · Deutsch (de) · English (en) · Esperanto (eo) · español (es) · suomi (fi) · français (fr) · עברית (he) · 日本語 (ja) · norsk (no) · polski (pl) · português (pt) · русский (ru) · slovenčina (sk) · svenska (sv) · Türkçe (tr) · українська (uk) · 中文（简体） (zh-hans) · 中文（繁體） (zh-hant) · +/−

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed.
Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes.

Inclusionism is the view that information should be liberally added and retained on Wikipedia. It is espoused by users called inclusionists who favor keeping and amending problematic articles over deleting them. Inclusionists are generally less concerned with the question of notability, and instead focus on whether or not an article is factual, with merit, or usefulness.

Inclusionism is opposed to deletionism which supports the deletion of unworthy articles and exclusionism which involves removal of unhelpful information (and deletion of an entire article only if such removal leaves nothing behind). In other areas, inclusionism usually aligns with eventualism because both philosophies hold that articles with mixed quality of content should be retained and will be improved in time. As the size of Wikipedia grows, incrementalists may become more inclusionist as the standards for notability become easier to meet. Inclusionists do not necessarily lean toward either end of the mergism-separatism or exopedianism-metapedianism spectrums.

Rationale

One of the favorite phrases of inclusionists is "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia." Since Wikipedia is now on the Internet and does not have the same space limitations as a paper encyclopedia, floppy disk, CD or DVD, there is no need to restrict content in the same way that a paper encyclopedia does. Usually the AFD discussion takes up the same or greater amount of disk space than the article. It has also been suggested that no performance problems result from having many articles [1]. Inclusionists claim that authors should take a more open-minded look at content criteria. Articles on people, places, and concepts of little note may be perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia in this view. Some inclusionists do not even see a problem with including pages which give a factual description of every person on Earth.

From a deletionist or exclusionist viewpoint, inclusionists appear to be arguing for the value of material and information which is substandard, or inadequately verified; however, inclusionists counter that there is little harm in keeping material that might some day be improved as information on the topics become more widely available. Inclusionists also point out that Wikipedia is not meant to be a poor copy of the Britannica, but rather a unique encyclopedia that should exist as "the sum of all human knowledge." Furthermore, inclusionists argue that the concept of "notability", an idea that many deletionists use as a basis for selecting which articles ought to remain and which deleted, usually has no objective criteria. They argue that reliance on such a concept does more harm than good to the goals of the project.

Inclusionists may be perceived as having a greater acceptance of trivialities, small articles, non-traditional topics, and non-academic articles; this may cause them opposition by those who hold stricter views about the proper content of an encyclopedia. Inclusionists often see this project as a completely new and revolutionary way of storing and organizing all human knowledge. Some editors may object to articles and lists such as a "list of Roman cognomina", but some inclusionists strongly support such items, arguing that they are valid additions to an encyclopedia aimed at being a repository of all human knowledge. Inclusionists may feel such critics are simply suffering from the academic standards kick.

Two important prerequisites for additions to Wikipedia are that the information is correct and well placed. That last aspect requires a good structuring of Wikipedia in levels of detail, with general articles linking to more detailed 'subarticles', which in turn link to still more detailed ones, so that (ideally, eventually) on the one hand people who are not interested in certain details will not be bothered by them, while on the other hand people who are interested in them will easily find them through just a few well-placed links. If the information is not thus well placed or Wikipedia is not well structured to place the info, then that should be changed instead of removing the info. If someone finds something interesting enough to write about, then chances are that someone else will (one day) find it interesting enough to read about, so it should be in Wikipedia. If that person does not know where to place the info, then that should not stop them from putting it somewhere. Someone else will then (eventually) put it in the right place. Although of course what is the 'right place' also changes over time. If for example the info does not warrant a separate article yet, it can be kept in a higher level article, where it might become a 'seed' that attracts other related info, which together might later warrant a separate (sub)article. Such loose facts are often placed in trivia sections at the bottom of an article. Removing those seeds will stunt the growth of Wikipedia. In this area of thought, inclusionism has natural connections with (1) eventualism and (2) structurism, which seeks to build logical content containers even if some of them are still empty and will not be filled with content for some years to come. It also can be viewed as paralleling the legal standard of presumption of innocence.

As always, the dangers of factionalism should be noted, as should the likelihood that many Wikipedians are neither exclusively inclusionist nor deletionist, but mergist or some other wiki-philosophy.

Arguments against deletion

Everybody, please feel free to add more arguments here! As many as possible!

A deletionist sentiment: "Too many unnoteworthy or obscure articles impede finding the relevant stuff, like trying to find a needle in a haystack." — This notion is outdated, in part because the Wikipedia search engine was updated and improved in May 2010, in which "Search suggestions are now improved to get you to the page you are looking for more quickly," as reported on the Wikimedia blog on May 13, 2010. (link: "A new look for Wikipedia".)

Deletions and deletionism goes against the entire basic premise of Wikipedia: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia.
It's easy to criticize and delete, whereas it's much more difficult to do research and create content. "Better to light a candle than curse the darkness."
Wikipedia is not censored.
Article additions and expansions as well as adding sources, and allowing time for them to occur, is almost always highly superior to simply deleting articles.
Instead of deleting articles altogether, they can sometimes be merged with other articles (see mergism).
Instead of deleting articles altogether, they can sometimes be userfied so that the user can work on improving the article on their timeframe.
Notability of articles is sometimes very subjective, varying with time, geography and interest. For some people, US 1980 presidential candidate John Anderson might be a noted person; others who don't live in the United States might feel that Scottish 18th century scientist John Anderson is more prominent. Thankfully, Wikipedia can cover both of them without any problems or lack of space.
It can be discouraging when articles created by first-time contributors and newer users are deleted without (in their opinion) a good reason. In their view, at least, the subject matter is noteworthy.
It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia looking for information, and instead find that the relevant article that existed at one point has since then been deleted. This discourages both Wikipedia readership and authorship.
Deleting an article under the generic basis of notability both reduces Wikipedia to the level of traditional encyclopedias (which won't cover topics that Wikipedia will for various reasons, including notability), and also doesn't provide the oversight that a traditional encyclopedia has to justify it trimming articles. Part of the reason people use Wikipedia is that it is a vibrant source of obscure knowledge, especially about obscure topics that aren't covered in a more traditional encyclopedia. Other methods of ensuring quality, such as labeling a page "In Need of Editing and Sources", are more than enough to correct problems.
The Wikipedia search engine was updated and improved in May 2010, in which "Search suggestions are now improved to get you to the page you are looking for more quickly," as reported on the Wikimedia blog on May 13, 2010. (link: "A new look for Wikipedia".) This serves to nullify the deletionist argument that "too many unnoteworthy or obscure articles impede finding the relevant stuff..." in Wikipedia searches.
Search, categorization, disambiguation pages, lists and other technical measures for organization can diminish the difficulty in finding information even when there are many articles about insignificant subjects.
Deletionists may subjectively pick-and-choose from a long and diverse list of Wikipedia notability and other guidelines as a rationale for the blanket deletion of an article. When one chosen standard is disproven, another rule is searched for and then stated as a rationale for deletion. This goes against the fifth pillar of Wikipedia— that firm rules should not impede progress in building a better encyclopedia
Deletionists may use absolutist rationales and stances to justify article deletion. A notable example in Articles for deletion logs is arguing that absolutely no reliable sources exist to establish notability for and/or verify an article, while utilizing only one brief search for news and other sources, such as on Google or Google news, to qualify the statement. Sometimes it takes only seconds to disqualify such statements by utilizing web searches in other mediums, particularly those that are empirical, research-based, and lack a profit motive.
Some deletionists will maliciously delete articles that are on subjects that they find politically, economic or religious uncomfortable for themselves, or delete information which goes against their personal beliefs even when it is fully sourced, which is against two policies of Wikipedia: free knowledge and NPOV. No one has the right to run Wikipedia as their private propaganda megaphone.
It's easy to just sit down at home and say "I don't know anything of that or that or that, let's delete it!" about local people, politics, economics, religion, events, science, arts, literature, film, theater, food and drinking/restaurants, geography, astronomy, dance, music, sports, education and whatever all around the Earth, but when it's your own hometown or native country (or just something you know), you've often heard of it over the local media or been taught about it at school as a child, and since you know of its local importance you would like to keep it (and as long as you can keep the NPOV-writting, no one can blame you for conflict of interest).
Some deletionists might also delete articles on topics which, while inoffensive or unrelated to them, may seem unimportant or irrelevant because of lack of familiarity or disinterest due to cultural differences.
Deletions and mergings lead to Wikipedia being split up. There are proposes to create an "Inclupedia" mirror website, and there is a Deletionpedia and an Everybody Wiki. Also, a lot of fandom and themed wikis like the Star Wars wiki and a Star Trek wikis have become popular. Do you have time for or want to be active on all those fandom and themed wikis at the same time, when it could be all here, "under the same roof", where NPOV is what we want? In the future, if deletionism continues, there might maybe be several general Wikipedias in each language, with different notability guidelines. These general Wikipedias would be created because of disappointment with the current Wikipedia's notability guidelines leading to deleted articles, and people will go where the articles are, not where they aren't. It's also easier for people searching for knowledge having it all at the same wiki.
If Wikimedia Commons can add so much of the world in picture, with the only and very simple requirement of being the very universal "educational" topic, then why can't Wikipedia do that in words?
Articles of current events are often said to fit better into the Wikinews, which isn't true. The difference between Wikipedia and Wikinews is not what's written, but rather how it's written. An event can fit in both, written like an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia and like in a newspaper on Wikinews.
Articles often vandalized by vandals (like schools, often a target for article deletion) can just be locked. Sadly, this reduces the opportunity to edit the article, but everyone can still read it and it's better for the information-searcher (who we actually write for) than no article at all. Or else we can just say: "-Shut down Wikipedia once for all. No Wikipedia, no problems!"
Articles with commercial connections, like companies, are often deleted based on the opinion that "everything commercial is only bad, just because it's commercial and businesspeople make money on it. Let's delete it!" Sorry, but that's POV.
When articles are to be deleted in one language, they might be translated into other languages. Is it the language that keeps them doing any wrong? Wikipedia isn't split into languages for fun, but because people speak different languages.
Notability guidelines, deletions and mergings may lead to lies being told. Let's say we require a number of employees for a company to be on Wikipedia. This would cause the company to lie about its number of employees to everyone just to get a Wikipedia article. (and as long as there's no bookkeeping crimes involved, they will not risk anything)
Even if Wikipedia's role is not to turn the un-famous into famous, there is a risk that's what it already has done when some such articles may slip through the notability guidelines for years.
Even if we are leaving the paper age right behind us, some people still have preconceptions what an encyclopedia is and can only include, dated from the paper age. As the years progress, more and more people accept Wikipedia being allowed to include most knowledge, and it's not a distant science-fiction-like future we're talking of, but rather an era which we've already begun to enter.
Deletions and deletionism may cause disappointed contributors to leave the project. It has already occurred several times. Fun?
Some popular culture objects may be critiqued because of cultural elitism (e.g., those who say Ingmar Bergman's films are better than splatter films and back in the 1950's and 60's, those who say you should read "real" books instead of comic books, those who say you should listen to classical music instead of rock music). A lot of popular culture is often lambasted as "fancruft", "unnecessary knowledge" and "unimportant information". Sorry, but labeling knowledge in this way is POV violation. How important or good something is, is up to the reader. Our only ambition is to describe the world.
Deletionism may favour urban districts over rural ones, since many small towns don't have a lot of world famous people, but only people who are important for their town. If someone creates an article about, let's say, a fountain in a village in the rural Highlands of Scotland, mergists would call for merging it with the village article. But if it was in let's say London, people wouldn't even question the article existing.
Deletionism may favour rich countries, since it's there most people have a computer and the Internet at home. (poor countries are usually less in the medias, except wars, famines and natural disasters or sports success) This would give a very Western World-fixed POV. Sure Wikipedia is no charity project, but it still shall cover the entire world.
It's easy for an administrator to delete, as he or she can still watch deleted articles when needing the knowledge, as well as restore the article when he or she wants. Other users can't...
Whenever I come to any other topic-related Wiki (like a comic books wiki, Star Wars wiki or any other topic, no matter if I'm interested in it or not), I always think: "-How much I wish everything here, both articles and contributors, was on Wikipedia instead (with NPOV, of course)".
On Wikipedia, there is place, but we still seem to behave as if there weren't. Wanting to delete when there is place is like fighting over food in a developed country.
Let's compare the deletion of Wikipedia to a building that's ripped apart during construction. Why were Sweden, Switzerland and the USA among the world's richest and wealthiest countries on Earth by 1970? Answer = Not having any of the world wars, or any other major military conflict, on home soil (OK, the USA had Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941 during World War II, but not much more), they didn't need time to re-build houses bombed at war! Instead, they could continue developing their economy, education and welfare when many other have to re-start from Square 1 again.
No one is a deletionist when they search for the information!
For every year that passes, we write more and more for generations who have grown up with the "almost everything is on the Internet" perspective, rather than "Which book am I going too use this time?". So what's better than having the information here, where NPOV is the ambition?
Picking up articles and nominating them for deletion or merging, or questioning the notability, is sometimes seen as a "good job" by users, which will lead to administratorship or becoming a popular user. Please fight the idea; let other things (like the fighting against vandalism which is uncontroversial) decide administratorship, in the worst cases, it can lead to people competing in nominating for deletions/merging, or competing over deleting and merging articles. See en:Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Sometimes it's said that after some time at Wikipedia, you will "learn what belongs to Wikipedia or not, and what's encyclopedic". Having edited since July 2005 something and as one of the most active users on the Swedish-language Wikipedia, I'm still strongly against most calls for deletions and mergings
When some articles are nominated, many of them have been around for years, and often with no problem. So how can they suddenly be considered non-notable? And if the article suddenly ends up deleted somehow, Wikipedia has just taken yet another step backwards.
One argument for deletion is, "Deletion solves all problems. No article, no problem." That's like beheading someone to cure brain cancer. It gets rid of the cancer, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
Another argument for deletion is, "Inclusionism is for lazy fatwads." What kind of an argument is that? That they've resorted to name-calling reflects very poorly on them.
Referring to Wikipedia as an "all-knowing junk heap" is POV; one person's junk heap is another person's treasure trove.
Sometimes, people use the absence of one article to favor deletion of existing articles. Sorry, but the absence of article A doesn't justify deletion or merging of article B. If you want article A to be written, just write it (or ask for it being written at the wishlists) instead of attacking already existing articles.
Deletions seem to be behind a lot of conflicts on Wikipedia, where users call each other names (like "idiot", "stupid", "ugly" or whatever), leading to administrators suspending offenders, and focus moves from articles to conflict, turning Wikipedia into social media. More rules, more conflicts.
The German-language Wikipedia lost both financial and content contributors due to unchecked Löschtroll (Purging trolls) activity. As a result, many German-language Internet magazines now insted link just to the English-language Wikipedia because they can't be reasonably sure if a de:WP article or section they link to today will still be there next week. Searches that end up in a "has been deleted" page on de:WP, but yield a valid result on en:WP, drive yet more German-language readers in this direction.
When the Swedish-language Wikipedia began mass-deleting and mass-merging substubs for a while throughout 2008 and into early 2009, activity decreased and recovering took years before restorings finally could be done. (there was some minor decline even before, but those deletions and mergings definitely didn't help to increase activity.) There were less sources at the time, and sources became more common after that. But imagine if all time spent on those deletings and mergings instead had been spent on immediately adding sources.
What's notable and not isn't just differing between persons, but for the same person differing from time to time. If you're at school, London would be notable at the geography lesson, Abraham Lincoln at the history lesson, and the Beatles at the music lesson. All this within just some hours of the same day!
Articles about musicians who have become popular throughout talent shows (like Idols) may be deleted because people who prefer bands who have performed together since high school sometimes look down on talent show participants. Sorry, but that's POV.
Controversial issues and POV-articles may often be picked up for deletion or merging. Controversial topic or POV are no deletion arguments, just arguments for rewriting the article.
With Wikidata, each topic is now allowed a short description in any language, often without any Wikipedia article existing in any single language at all. This might be very irritating if you read in a language where the article has been deleted.
Wikipedia is used at free risk. There is no need to delete articles "lacking of quality". But there is always a chance to improve them.
On the Internet, outside Wikipedia, why do you think there are a lot of people complaining over deletions, but not a lot of people complaining over articles actually existing?
Lack of history-knowledge may lead to historical topics being deleted, while current event can be kept because of media overflow on the Internet.
Deletions can lead to favoring males and deleting females because of historical, economic, social and cultural opinions.
Sometimes, articles are deleted after not being improved for one year or something. Sorry, but unlike Super Mario Bros., Wikipedia has no time that can run out! We're no video game, and we don't run of time. The point with Wikipedia is that improving an article is never too late, no matter if it's 10 minutes after article creation, or 10 years later!
Finding sources is usually easy today, with the Internet being around. Imagine if people cared more for spending time on looking for sources rather than calling for deletion because of sources lacking.
Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of notability can reduce the amount of valuable information on Wikipedia.
Sometimes, articles are proposed to be merged into lists. However, Wikipedia is on the first hand based on articles, not lists. Lists come in the second hand. Lists shall usually link to separate articles, not be some kind of compilation articles.
Sometimes, articles are merged into lists, redirecting. The lists are sometimes replaced with categories, in turn sometimes leading to the list ending up deleted. This also causes the deletion of articles (with revision history) now working as redirect.
With notability guidelines introduced, and deletions and mergings proposed, users may instead move article-like information, considered not notable, to their own Wikipedia userpages (where they can POV-push it).
It's a strength that Wikipedia can cover as much knowledge as possible.
The language-version of Wikipedia, with the less strictest notability guidelines, will without hesitating become the most popular among those who know that language. When sources are added to the articles and NPOV held, that formula becomes unstopable.
Sometimes, an article is deleted or merged based on one single administrator's personal opinions on what shall be on Wikipedia and not, despite doing such things being very controversial among many other users.
Encyclopedists of the past, all the way from the first ancient Stone Age hunter, fisher and farmer civilizations ever walking on Earth up to the highly advanced computer age technologies of the global 1990's, were limited by the length of the paper (or the size of the cave for early cave painters, or stone scriptures for the first civilizations adopting a written language and actually even the limit of CD-ROM's during the 1990's) to various degrees. Today's encyclopedists are limited only by totally manmade notability guidelines. It's like rejecting the progress of technology, and still today travel across the Atlantic Ocean by sailing ship instead of motorship, or maybe aeroplane!.
If Wikipedia had cared more for adding sources to the articles already from the beginning, the Deletionism-Mergism movements would probably have been much less active.
Articles about reality television participants are often deleted bacuse such forms of entertainment is generally looked down on (despite their major popularity), and the participants are labelled like "wannabe celebrities". Like it or not, but if the participants have received the same media publicity as anyone else, they have satisfied notability.
One article added, another one deleted. It can't be easy for Wikipedia to expand!
Deletionists may delete any and all information that lacks a citation, regardless of whether or not the information given is true. It is proper etiquette to mark such information, if questionable, as needing a citation, rather than immediately jumping the gun.
As Wikipedia now grows more and more in each language, more and more people will ask for it to cover almost everything (except the most private). With Wikipedia expanding even further, the frustration over each deletion (or even mergings) may become bigger and bigger.
When Wikipedia started in mid-January 2001, many people couldn't imagine an encyclopedia covering as much as possible. Today, more and more people can, and the number is growing stronger and stronger for every year passing by!
Times seem to become tougher and tougher to argue for deletions (or mergings). Some years ago the arguments would oppose subjects having articles. When Wikipedia began to care more and more for adding sources, they instead have to attack the quality of the article.
The limit of the paper was a problem for paper encyclopedias, not a strength!
Reading a paper or 1990's CD-ROM encyclopedia can make you interested in reading more about some things, only to discover the encylopedia hasn't much more information about that topic (and it can't be expanded either). Those days are nothing to miss!
Inclusion leads to the possibility of delight. When one is looking for something obscure, and finds a Wikipedia article that mentions or even features the topic, that may give rise to a frisson of delight. If the article has a source, that may enable someone to delve even more deeply, leading to even greater delight.
Every created article is basically a call for including it (it's not often someone picks up an article created by himself or herself for deletion or even merging!).
Sometimes the lack of updating is used as a deletion or merging argument. That makes no sense. Sooner or later every encyclopedia becomes outdated, but remember Wikipedia can always be updated!
Sometimes articles are proposed for deletion or merging because they're considered too short. Sorry, but a short article can also be well-written and there are always possibilities for expansion.
One of Wikipedia's biggest weaknesses, except for being open to article POV-pushers and vandals, is that the you'll never know if the article you read today is there tomorrow - or even within just some minutes!
Once the number of articles has been deleted within one topic, the hunt will continue for articles within other topics.
Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia of everything by everyone. All information should be easily accessible to everyone, and everyone should be encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia. What's the point of having information if no-one can find it
Deletionism is far too negative and discourages people from contributing. It's also kinda elitist - after all, who judges what should be kept and what shouldn't be? In the end, the admins and the more experienced will accrue more and more power over Wikipedia, bowing the guidelines towards their wikideology
Sometimes, articles are called for deletion or merging because the topic has ceased to exist (deceased person or disbanded organization). That's never an argument. There's something called history.
Sometimes, articles created by a banned user are called for deletion or merging. That's never an argument
Start thinking of Wikipedia as a beautiful forest full of majestic trees, standing tall now, having been planted a couple of decades ago. Even the tallest trees aren't yet mature, but the woodland is extensive, and most trees are strong and healthy. People are tending to them and sunlight streams down, reaching the dense understorey of shrubs, whilst on the forest floor small flowers are in bloom, many with flowers yet to burst open and properly show their true colours. Numerous acorns are germinating, and those that somehow manage to avoid the browsing of the deer or the attacks of bark-stripping squirrels might one day rise up to become trees in their own right, too. Buzzing between the flowers, or crawling through the leaf litter there are innumerable small creatures. These dipterans, coleopterans, vespids, arachnids, millipedes and isopods mostly go unnoticed by visitors to the forest, but all form part of the rich woodland ecosystem. Without them the woodland will be poorer and not so healthy. Then along comes the woodsman, proud of his big trees, only wanting the best from the forest and, upon seeing some small insect he's never encountered before, roundly stamps upon it, content with himself that he's got rid of some worthless ugly critter that's just getting in the way of people wanting to admire those lovely big trees. Maybe, if he'd got his insect ID book with him, he'd have stopped and taken a moment to identify the innocent creature, and appreciated its worth within the bigger picture of that complex forest system. Had he known how to identify that insect properly he might even have realised its supporting role in cross-pollination, and how it presence adds to the biodiversity and value of the forest. On his way out, he swings his axe at a germinating acorn, not recognising how this sapling oak tree might one day be appreciated by visitors to that forest, or how it might have grown up to become home to countless other woodland species that depend upon it. I sense you are that woodsman - wanting the best, but unable to see how best to manage the forest ecosystem around him. As a start, cease stamping on things. Authored by User:Nick Moyes during an argument with a reckless deletionist on AN/I. - 24 January 2018
Users may feel stressed to quickly improve or expand articles, to avoid deletions or mergings. Articles being improved is always good, but doing it editing under stress is not the best way!
Being a Wikipedian is, sadly, less and less about adding something new, and instead becoming more and more about having to deal with saving already existing articles from deletions or mergings.
In the diversity of minority groups of Christianity there are points of view with strong evidence, but inclusion is not allowed because they are considered irrelevant under the justification of "fringe theory", or because it is not the "mainstream view".
The primary function is to edit, and editing is energetically expensive. Non-edits & other discussions detract from this function, and they are exhausting and take away energy that could be used for editing.
Every bit of Wikipedia has some sort of useful knowledge that would be valuable to someone (excluding, of course, patent nonsense and the like). If we delete that, then we are deleting good knowledge. Even if it may not be useful to you, it is very, very likely that it is useful to someone else.
It is more time-efficient to preserve articles created too soon, including abandoned drafts, in a dedicated archive or user name space instead of deleting, as this would allow both editors' and administrators' time to be spent more productively than on handling later undeletion requests. A future editor could decide immediately whether to take the headstart from the previous editor or start from scratch (blank), rather than awaiting an undeletion request.
Why not let anyone who wishes to learn about a subject be able to opt to read about it despite of insufficient notability or article length? Perhaps, such articles can be moved to a location not indexed by web search engines, but remain accessible to interested readers. There is no benefit in hiding something just because its importance is unclear.
Notability Guideline was created to fight against semi-vandal intent to create an article for every 'interesting' person including porn stars. As a judgement on notability cannot be established without having a particular point of view, the use of the guideline for those purposes other than fighting vandalism, such as a basis to play "wannabe tin-pot dictators",^[1] violates Neutral Point of View policy by enforcing one point of view onto others. Not finding a creative way to save something potentially useful is a sin against Wikipedia by not leaving the judgement on its notability to the test of time.
The sum of all human knowledge is what we strive for. Selection has no place in this endeavor.
People usually look for things by name. If they're exploring, they'll probably do it by links. Maybe in the see also section. You can curtail the see also section to important things or perhaps the see also section could link to a relevant category of "Important things of XYZ" and you can curtail what shows up in that section. Furthermore, as history goes on, more important things will happen. So either way, more articles would need to be created.
If a person doesn't bother to track down unsourced claims when making a publication of some sort, that's on them (not that we don't try to do something about misinformation, but it should be noted that the ratio of vandalism to legitimate content is more in favor of legitimacy for the time being). We're trying to help information get the freedom it wants. It's up to the user to do whatever they're going to do with it. Remember, Wikipedia is used on your own risk.
After many positive years, with an open and free Internet, we are slowly entering a dark age, with paywalls and websites requiring readers to log in. Wikipedia should not contribute to making information harder to find with deleting content.
Deleting content pleases the leaders and governments of authoritarian and totalitarian states, where dictators want to limit people's access to knowledge. While Wikipedia is not a political movement, it should definately stand up for the right to read and spread free information and NPOV.
Deleting content pleases big companies, who want to see smaller companies (their potential competitors) deleted.
When streaming had kicked in by the early 2010's, a lot of people were happy of having almost everything at one place (Netflix). As more services (Amazon Prime, Disney Plus) appeared, people become frustrated. Same goes for Wikipedia and all the fandom wikis.

Quotation

"We want the Demon, you see, to extract from the dance of atoms only information that is genuine, like mathematical theorems, fashion magazines, blueprints, historical chronicles, or a recipe for ion crumpets, or how to clean and iron a suit of asbestos, and poetry too, and scientific advice, and almanacs, and calendars, and secret documents, and everything that ever appeared in any newspaper in the Universe, and telephone books of the future…"

– Stanisław Lem, The Cyberiad (tr. Michael Kandel)

Alternatives

A notice box can inform readers that the content would normally not have qualified for a main-space article.

Archived article: "Example" would normally have been deleted due to lack of notability or quality, but it has been moved to this archive for future reference.

For clarity, a small notice can be fixed to a corner of the view port:

Archived article

Some deletions are aimed at "housekeeping" rather than removing detrimental content from public view. As of April 2022, there are three levels of visibility: public, deleted, and suppressed. A suggestion is to add a "soft-deleted" level between "public" and "deleted", where the requirement for viewing is being logged in. Soft deletion would be applied to anything non-detrimental such as mere lack of notability or quality (example: "Exposure Room" from 2008), deprecated templates, wrong language, promotional, stale drafts, hoaxes, pages with unmet dependencies such as redirects to deleted pages, technical deletions such as for history merging, and test pages, whereas detrimental content such as copyright violations and personal attacks would still be hard-deleted as usual.

References

↑ Nicholson Baker, New York Review of Books, 20 March 2008, The Charms of Wikipedia

External links

Nicholas Carr on longer term implications of Deletionism vs. Inclusionism

[1] Nicholson Baker, New York Review of Books, 20 March 2008, The Charms of Wikipedia

[1]