[solardev]

I didn't make it up, but I did get the terms slightly wrong. It's "inclusionists" vs "deletionists" (not exclusionists).

There's literally a Wikipedia page about it (how notable is THAT): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_i...

It's a stupid debate to even be having. IMO only. Clearly I fall into the former camp.

[ghaff]

I know you didn't make things up and I didn't see correcting the terminology to be worthwhile. But most people don't think simply everything makes a worthwhile article while, at the same time, I for one generally don't think articles should be deleted even if they're a bit thin on detail and notability so long as they're reasonably sourced.

[solardev]

Maybe it's like politics, where given only two choices, people will just gravitate towards the extremes over time and become hyperpolarized?

I wish there was a sane third way. Like instead of "Speedy delete" (why the hell is that EVER necessary), maybe a friendly auto-merge suggestion ("Hey, thanks for your contribution! This article may not be notable enough to stand on its own, but your addition would be a very valuable addition as a new section of this other existing article. Mind if we put it there instead?") or something like that.

When someone spent hours creating something as a volunteer, they shouldn't ever be met with a choice of "Either convince our bureaucracy in the next few days that this is important, or you will lose all your work." That's an insanely hostile policy towards new editors.