Wikipedia is a volunteer service. No one has any obligation to complete any articles or other jobs by any deadlines. No articles should be considered for deletion just because they are not completed, updated, or otherwise improved by a deadline.
All good-faith contributions are extremely valuable, even when they are rejected by others. It is important to respect the good-faith contributions of others, and only remove them when absolutely warranted.
I personally try to be as inclusive as possible of the good-faith edits of others. If someone adds something to an article that I initially wrote or have made major contributions to, if it is not written well, I try to improved upon it rather than removing it. If I merge two articles, I try to include as much unique information of what both contain as possible.
All articles created in good faith should be given a chance before they are considered for deletion. If one feels deletion may be necessary, it is better to have a discussion with the creator prior to the proposal.
I oppose overzealous deletion proposals, and feel that deletion should be a last resort except when content is obviously inappropriate.
Speedy deletion should be limited to gross violation of policy and other serious abuses, and for technical deletions (such as author's request or page moves).
Other forms of deletion should be avoided if at all possible. Alteratives should always be considered, such as merging, in order to preserve the edit histories.
Previously deleted material can be recreated and improved, and if so, should be given a chance, and not speedy deleted
In all, I very seldom propose an article for deletion. I have started only a small number of AfDs, and when I do New Page Patrol, I prefer to PROD as opposed to AfD in order to give the creator a chance to independently improve the page as need be to avert its deletion. I mark pages for speedy deletion only if they are in gross violation of Wikipedia policy.
Notability is not a status assigned to an elite group of subjects. All it means is that it is possible to write a neutral, factually accurate article about the subject given the available sources.
Not everything is notable, but quite a lot of stuff is. Many subjects have offline sources only that are difficult to find.
For certain subjects, it is obviously not practical to write an article on every single one of them (see WP:MILL). These include people, small businesses, and streets, just to name a few.
Work on de-orphaning as many essays as possible. Many essays have been written and forgotten.
Become an administrator. I have tried once and failed, and I am ready for this to take several tries. After a year that personally kept me away from Wikipedia for some time, I plan to get back to that.
For the picture added to WP:AMOUNT. I was looking for something, and this was perfect. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar
For adding a nice "checkmate" image to the essay WP:WABBITSEASON, I award you The Minor Barnstar for your minor edit that I beleive makes a huge difference! Paul McDonald (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
In case you've never been recognised for it before, this is in thanks for your work in creating the essay WP:MILL, which is one of the clearest and most well-reasoned essays on Wikipedia and one which I use almost daily in AfD debates. DustFormsWords (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar
I'm not sure if you're around here much these days? But I found a bunch of your essays recently & they're both helpful & *kind.* Also looks like you contributed piles to an essay that was in the Signpost last month, so I guess you're still helping plenty of others, too. // Knifegames (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The name Sebwite is a spoonerism of the word website.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
