resource, using notions of what was and wasn't encyclopedic. The concept of Veri- fiability became increasingly important, first as a criterion and then as a policy, and the community now accepts that unverifiable material may be deleted. Attention then shifted for some years to the implications of Verifiability, such as the debate over the guideline on Reliable sources. Over time, the middle way of eventualism has won this debate, at least in practice--articles always need to be cleaned up, and deleting material that really cannot be verified is simply one aspect of the push for quality. In 2007, attention turned back to deletionism because the net growth of articles seemed to have peaked (though outsiders were increasingly using Wikipedia for promotional ends by writing about themselves and their ventures). Although deletionism favors clear and relatively rigorous standards for accepting new articles, which are increasingly being adopted, inclusionism and the view that new articles should be given a chance have also continued to be major forces. Regardless, the inclusionist view that all processes are supposed to operate case by case rather than determining whether broad topic areas should be included continues to prevail, though this view is subject to great debate, especially in areas of popular culture. Endless variants and positions have claimed the middle ground. See [[Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia philosophy]] with around 30 such classes. Wikipedia has some significant hybrid positions, too. For instance, the eventualist- deletionist position is that deleting articles that really don't improve over time is not a great loss, and if a startup company or new idea prospers, an article on it will