User:Syrenka V

This editor is a hardcore Wikipedia inclusionist. Yes trivia sections!
Association of Inclusionist WikipediansThis user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.
refs=This user uses list-defined references. Here's how.
Because of real life, this user will be editing on and off.
This user likes "Trivia" and "In popular culture" information, and supports their inclusion.
This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.
This user has been awarded 3 Barnstars on Wikipedia.
WebCiteThis user believes in archiving sources to prevent link rot.
This user is a proposed deletion patroller.
This user is against most forms of copyright.
This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive.
Creative CommonsContent contributed by this user is released under any Creative Commons attribution license.
This user thanks Richard Stallman and Creative Commons for letting Wikipedia become CC and GFDL dual licensed.
This user's edits are
powered by caffeine.
This editor is a Journeyman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.
evenThis editor is an eventualist.

Inclusionism

My radical inclusionism is fundamental to my identity as a Wikipedian, and directly motivates my participation in article rescue. Whatever the motivations for deletionism may be, it is immensely destructive to Wikipedia.

Deletionists generally seem to be insiders, old hands at Wikipedia, unaware of the kind of impression their activities make on outsiders. For years, while I used Wikipedia as an information resource, I was deterred from active participation as an editor by concern about wasted work from wanton deletion—and I was from time to time outraged by deletion, or attempted deletion, of information that I had relied upon purely as a reader. Contrary to popular deletionist opinion, personal participation in the creation of the deleted material is not a necessary precondition to feeling this outrage—simply having relied upon the material as a reader/user, and then one day seeing it gone, is enough all by itself.

On the other hand, the need for empathy cuts both ways. Active participation in deletion discussions has made me newly aware of the extent to which deletionism is motivated by a desire to counteract paid editing and conflicts of interest. While I agree that these are very serious problems, deletionism is a dysfunctional response to them. I'm currently working on an unfinished draft userspace essay, Protection not deletion, about a more effective and less destructive response.

I'm assembling here some instructive reading material on the issue of inclusionism and deletionism.

A userspace essay by Northamerica1000 on the evils of aggressive deletionism, with external links to off-wiki articles about how destructive it can be.

Wikimedia sister projects

  • My user page on Meta

Articles created

The date is that of creation as a mainspace article. Some of these articles originated as drafts in my own userspace, so in those cases, these are the dates when I moved them into mainspace.

Article rescue

The articles below are those created by other users that I have tried to rescue, by whatever means (except for those in the subsection Under consideration, for which such action is merely being considered). Not all of these articles will have been added to the ARS rescue list. So far, no article that I have personally created has ever needed rescue, but if and when that happens, those articles will still be excluded from the lists below.

Dates associated with AfDs are when the deletion discussion was closed. Dates are not given for AfDs in process. Dates associated with contested proposed deletions are when they were contested. Dates for proposed deletions not yet contested are closing dates (the earliest date when the article can be deleted).

Under consideration

Deletion discussions under consideration

  • (none at present)

Proposed deletions under consideration

  • (none at present)

Deletion reviews under consideration

  • (none at present)

In process

Deletion discussions in process

  • (none at present)

Proposed deletions in process

For a WP:PROD, "in process" means that I've started making improvements in the page with intent to contest the proposed deletion, but I have not yet actually removed the proposed deletion tag. See Kept by contesting proposed deletion for pages that I'm continuing to improve after contesting their proposed deletion (any such pages are marked with an ampersand).

  • (none at present)

Deletion reviews in process

  • (none at present)

Kept

Kept after deletion discussion

This section includes articles I helped rescue that continued to exist as separate mainspace articles after the close of a deletion discussion, including those concluding with "no consensus", "procedural close", "withdrawn by nominator", etc., and those concluding with mere renaming of the article, as well as those concluding with "keep" or "speedy keep". This section does not include articles merged, draftified, userfied, or redirected so that they ceased to exist as separate mainspace articles. It also does not include articles kept by contesting a WP:PROD, unless they were subsequently nominated for deletion discussion (and I helped rescue them again). In cases where I helped with more than one rescue for the same article (for example, a proposed deletion followed by an AfD), all rescues in which I participated are listed as indented bullet points.

‡ Double dagger Deletion discussion was closed as "no consensus"
° Degree sign WP:SNOWBALL close
* Asterisk Barnstar awarded to me for my role in the rescue

Kept by contesting proposed deletion

This section includes articles that I rescued by contesting a WP:PROD, or that I helped rescue by making improvements with intent to contest a WP:PROD. Articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion after their proposed deletion was contested are not included.

I usually try to improve the article significantly when contesting a WP:PROD, although there are cases where this is not necessary; I mark these cases with a diamond symbol (♦). There are two recurrent subcategories of such cases:

  • Claims that an article is an "essay" even though it is already reasonably well sourced. The section WP:NOTESSAY within the policy WP:NOT characterizes "personal essays" as pages that "state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts)." If an article is reasonably well sourced, then it is not an "essay" within the meaning of WP:NOTESSAY.
  • Claims that a topic is "non-notable" when it is presumptively notable under one of the special notability guidelines. In particular, when the topic is a person who has "received a well-known and significant award or honor", that person is presumptively notable according to section WP:ANYBIO within guideline WP:BIO.

When improving an article that has been proposed for deletion, I usually at least begin the process before contesting the proposed deletion, although there are exceptions to this as well. These improvements sometimes amount to a near-total rewrite of the article; for example, this diff for Authored documentary.

Sometimes another user contests the proposed deletion before I'm done with my improvements; these cases are marked with a credit to the contesting user following the date. Examples: this diff for Music Markup Language and this diff for Asymmetric cut, which include improvements I made both before and after Kvng and Andrew Davidson, respectively, contested the proposed deletions. When another user is not explicitly credit, I was the one who contested the proposed deletion.

by USER User credit USER contested the proposed deletion after I had started making improvements to the article, but before I had completed them
♦ Diamond In my judgment at the time, the article did not require substantial improvement in order to justify contesting its proposed deletion
& Ampersand Improvements to the article are currently ongoing

Improved after listing for rescue without immediate jeopardy

These are articles that I improved after they were listed on the ARS rescue list as potentially at risk of deletion and in need of improvement, but were not in immediate jeopardy at the time (that is, they were not proposed for uncontested deletion, nominated for deletion discussion, or under deletion review at the time), nor had I ever before helped rescue them. The date is that of the relevant entry on the ARS rescue list.

+ Plus sign Added to the ARS rescue list by me (Syrenka V)
& Ampersand Improvements to the article are currently ongoing

Deleted

This section includes articles I tried to rescue that ceased to exist as separate mainspace articles after the close of the deletion discussion, including those draftified, userfied, redirected, or merged with another article, as well as those fully deleted. Articles that were merely renamed are not included.

In the key, the forms of deletion are ordered from "softest" to "hardest". The softer forms of deletion preserve the publicly visible page history and do not especially discourage revival of the article. The harder forms of deletion conceal the page history and discourage revival of the article; for example, by the infamous pink banner requesting that any user contemplating revival of the article should "please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed".

Note that some of the softer forms of deletion, such as the creation of a soft redirect to Wiktionary, may actually be a goal of rescue in cases where there is danger of a harder form of deletion and there does not appear to be a realistic chance (at the time) of preserving the article in mainspace.

In cases where the result of the deletion discussion was a flat "Delete", but a draft is also known to exist in draftspace (or, at my discretion, where a draft exists in userspace), the symbol for full deletion (†) is given first, followed by a link to the draft. The symbol for draftification (¶) is used only when draftification was the result of the AfD.

↔ Double arrow Soft redirect
Paragraph symbol Draftification
Û Circumflex capital U Userfication
→ Right arrow Merge or hard redirect
† Dagger Full deletion

Page protection

In process

  • (none at present)

Declined

Date is when the most recent protection request was declined.

Page maintenance

These are pages that I did not create or rescue, but that I am currently working on for other reasons, or that I have (in my own judgment) made highly significant contributions to in the past.

Username

My username is from the Mermaid of Warsaw, used on the Coat of arms of Warsaw. I'm not Polish; I just love the symbolism!

Design for Grand Coat of Arms of Warsaw ("Semper invicta")
Design for Grand Coat of Arms of Warsaw ("Semper invicta")
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Syrenka_V&oldid=881383589"