Chris Wood wrote While this may be true, an equal number of inclusionists vote to keep whatever falls out of someone's pocket. I'm very discouraged by the deletionist-bashing I've seen here the last few. For the most part, it has been divisive and mean-spirited. Deletionists are part of the natural spectrum of editorial consciousnesses we see at Wiki, and help to ensure that my dog Spot does not have an article of his own. A comment was made that the number of articles voted for deletion has soared in the past few months. I have noted the same, but I have also noted that, relative to six months ago, the number of articles arriving which are personal vanity pages, joke pages, and advertising pages has also soared. I would suspect that a numerical analysis would show no greater percentage of pages being deleted than before. I find it much harder to work on VfD these days exactly because of all the personal crud I must plow through - it seems that the disclaimer on the Create and Article page only encourages people to try to get their own sad history onto Wiki. The deletionist argument is a red herring. I'm sure most people here do as I do - try to ensure a healthy balance between votes to keep and votes to delete, which are based on a careful read of the article before a decision is reached. Or am I too optimistic? Denni -- "The opinions expressed here are entirely those of the author, though the management has been paid to keep its mouth shut if he says something they don't like."