Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incrementalism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn, or keep in any event. bainer (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Incrementalism
Seems to be a neologism. Wcquidditch | Talk 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --Wcquidditch | Talk 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC) After seeing some reaction, I have changed my vote. See below. Vote restored (for a different reason) per Haseler. -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   contribs  19:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Changed again! -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  22:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I've certainly never heard of it. -^demon 20:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as common term in widespread use. . I've heard of it.  It is used in mathematics, computer programming and can even be used in philosophy.  I guess someone will try to argue its a dic def, but I disagree whoeheartedly.  Its a belief system, a way of doing things, and that makes it encyclopaedic.  Here is an example of the philosophy of incrementalism .  Needs a bit of a rewrite though. Its rather over-simplified the whole concept. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 21:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Wiktionary. It is actually a word, often used as a synomyn to "creeping socialism," among others, but it is a dictionary word, not an encyclopedia article.  Jtmichcock 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. A good article could be made from this. At the moment, it is speediable. Would vote to keep if improved.Capitalistroadster 23:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and added wikification and cleanup tags to the article. I now admit this can use an article, but it needs improving.  Keep, but clean and wikify it (again, the templates are now on the article).  (Anyone who reads this as a withdrawl can call it that, I won't, but I have no objections if it is treated as such.) --Wcquidditch | Talk 01:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I wrote the article but have decided that it should be deleted - work in progress i.e. incrementalism doesn't seem to be part of the philosophy of Wiki - and on day 2 I'm pretty disallusioned with Wiki anyway! You may note that it was the US and UK (in wind energy) that couldn't understand the concept of incrementalism and whilst laughing at the clumsy Danish machines failed to develop any of own fantastic concepts to viability! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseler (talk • contribs) 16:35 December 10, 2005
 * All, right then, delete, but I still think this should have an article judging by what others have said. The article as it stands now can go, however. Is this a speedy delete candidate as a G7? -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   contribs  19:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I look up "incremantlism" it says "do you wish to edit", I think maybe it would be a good idea to have an entry, I see get a first line out, then ten bikers jump on me - out of the darkness! If you don't want people to contribute then why invite them to join you? You'd thought people would want to help develop good articles rather than abort them at birth The point I'm making is that whether or not "incrementalism" is a worthwhile entry, if this is the way you treat newcomers, then I am horrified. I personally don't like putting myself up as a tin-can to be shot at - it may not seem like that to you - but it does to me - and I presume to 100s of other people who could make worthwhile contributions. I don't see any way to make progress so I'd have to agree to 'delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseler (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 December 2005
 * Oops, this is starting to become minor newcomer biting then. Please close this debate before it gets out of hand (in other words, I withdraw this nomination).  -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know what that means? I was going to put my entry in context. I heard on radio4 today, about Wiki, I'd come across it quite a few times, but I think the comments on radio 4 that "every page ought to have a 'under construction'" badge gave me the impression that I might be able to in some contributions. One under "Bliar", I in retrospect was inappropriate - but I still hadn't a clue why someone kept wiping it! I would have thought that new articles would be categorised as "under construction" - then "for review" then finally "for publication". I've found it very difficult to find my way around this site - and the tutorials weren't much help (but I never read instruction manuals so its probably me). As for "incrementalism", it is years since I was last involved in this type of work & perhaps I'm taking on too much trying to put together an entry that will satisfy the critics! I REALLY DO MEAN I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROCEED - SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE WELCOME!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseler (talk • contribs) 21:51, 10 November 2005
 * Why don't you take a look at our five pillars, our welcome page, Your first article, and our help pages (among other pages)? Perhaps they will help you create a good page -- if they don't get to you, of course. Also, why don't you sign your comments?  Also, should we just take this discussion away from AfD, since this is no longer about to delete the article or not?  Also, as a TfD debate has said, all articles are under construction.  There is a review process (although it is not always needed), and everything is always "published" (available to the public).  -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article has undergone incremental improvement. Kappa 12:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, not a dicdef, not a neologism, but it could use some references so it won't look like original research. (And wait more than 6 minutes before afding a new article!) - Bobet 21:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per ^demon. Stifle 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, no problems severe enough to justify deletion at the moment. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine, keep. The only problems with it now are just to fix it up.  I do not see any consensus developing, but that's okay.  The article I nominated is not the current one.  It can stay. -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  22:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.