I am a proud deletionist/reductionist editor on Wikipedia. In general, I feel that information should only be included if sources can be provided that:
1) Are not simply on the (proverbial) local news or by the group itself. That is to say, someone beyond the local paper has covered an event/group/item.
- As a corollary to this, at least one source on a professional should come from an institution not their own (i.e. a professor should be mentioned by something from another institution of higher learning).
- As an additional corollary to this, the source will preferably not be a database (i.e. IMDB or a list of election results, registered parties, etc.) and will include at least some substantial information on the subject.
2) Can be backed up with a second source, preferably meeting the same standards.
3) Meets any other standards of notability provided on the site.
4) Is not particularly "crufty" (that is to say, it doesn't cover minutiae in a fandom and has at least some out-of-universe relevance).
Also, put simply, I would sum up my views on deletion as "Better to delete a hundred minimally notable articles than to let one hoax or piece of non-notable cruft get through." Enough things get through, and sometimes stick around for weeks or months, that while there may be no formal deadline, there is a need to do things in a timely manner, as many people do use Wikipedia for research.
 | This user is a participant in WikiProject Deletion. |