How fitting it was then, that this was the very same day that a deletionIst did this.....You have not fully grasped what "deletionism" is. This is not entirely your fault as "deletionists" don't actually exist, it is a term mostly made up by the "inclusionist" whom you also wrongly characterize. They needed an enemy in order to frame what they do as a great struggle against injustice, so they made one up. Don't take my word for it, just ask just about anyone around here what they are really like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 1_April_13
One single editor, Coin945, nominated a shit load of articles for deletion, using one cookie cutter reason....
For those who don't know Wikipedia, and this might surprise those of you who thought it was an encyclopedia, this is not actually a valid reason to put an article up for deletion there.The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate.
The length of time an article has lain around unsourced, is immaterial to whether or not it might warrant a Wikipedia entry. It might be a sign it isn't needed. Then again it might not, since for a good while, in its very early days, Wikipedia articles weren't required to have any sources at all.
So for those reasons, the rules require the person who wants it gone, to have done their own search first to satisfy themselves there is a reasonable belief sources are not in the article because they don't exist. As such, essentially, by rule, there is no grounds to even have a deletion discussion on this basis.
One of the chief tactics of a deletionIst, is to skip this part, or claim they did it when they didn't, and simply claim there are no sources out there, so it should be deleted, in the hope nobody else is motivated enough to look themselves. It's a great trick, because after all, how do you actually prove they didn't look first, except in cases like this, where it is exceedingly obvious.
Inclusionists hate this aspect of deletionists, because it shows them for what they are - people who are directly opposed to the idea that Wikipedia is a work in progress. In their view, the best way to keep Wikipedia down to a minimum size, is to ensure the only stuff that is allowed to remain, is stuff that has already been shown to be worthy, and if nobody can be bothered to do the work to ensure it can remain, that's fine by them. Their primary motivation, is content removal.
Despite the clearly out of process manner of the deletion, many of the debates are going ahead anyway, because, for one, deletionIsts are real, and for two, there are still some people on Wikipedia who remember the golden rule - don't let the rules get in the way of improving Wikipedia. Between them, they are going to ensure April 13th goes down in history as a day when quite a lot of worthless shit was deleted from Wikipedia.
It would frankly be a deletionIst's wet dream to be able to start the ball rolling on what would a very novel approach to maintaining Wikipedia - having a time limit on how long an article can be kept without sources, before it has to be proactively determined whether it is or is not worthy of being kept. This may have been an attempt to get that ball rolling.
It mirrors other changes in Wikipedia that have inexorably meant that the deletionists have essentially already won the war against the inclusionists. Changes that have steadily chipped away at the idea that articles don't have to be perfect, and their creators don't have to be experts in sourcing articles.
Deletionists, counterintuitively, don't want deletion debates to be a thing on Wikipedia. They want every single article's worth to Wikipedia, to be obvious. Beyond question. A nice, small, worthwhile, reference work. None of this "List of left handed US Presidents" shit.
Once you get deep into articles created in 2008 and beyond, you'll get rid of a shit ton of crappy content whose merit is definitely questionable, just by default. The Wikishits are already whinging at having to source this many articles in a single week. Apparently 72 articles is a lot for their little heads to deal with. I suppose it is, when there's only really a hundred or so SAD BASTARDS who consider themselves to be the hardcore Wikipedia editing community.
And there you have it. Beeblebrox is proven to be clueless, yet again. Almost like the universe itself, agrees that he is a dick.
And yet again, nobody on Wikipediocracy called him out for it. Sellout motherfuckers.
It's a good job he isn't in a position where he might have to ultimately rule on whether or not Coin945 is being disruptive in a bad way, or disruptive in a good way, to say whether his pointy actions were for the benefit or detriment of Wikipedia.
Oh no, wait, HE IS!