Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive logic


 * 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 no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 18:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Progressive logic
Advert for the author's new book.
 * Delete. Gazpacho 06:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to change my vote. It's still a presentation of the contributor/author's own novel theory. Gazpacho 22:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Gazpacho wrote to Wjkellpro: Unlike Robert I cannot support keeping the article. I nominated it not only because of the original tone, but because this appeared to be your original interpretation of US politics. If this is not the case, you should add some sources, not written by you, that refer to the concept described in the article as "progressive logic." Gazpacho 00:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Wjkellpro replied: Hi Gazpacho! Thanks for clarifying your opposition to my article Progressive Logic. But I think you give me way too much credit for original research and thinking. This article does not breach the limits on original research for several reasons. First, it follows to the “t” the established meaning of “values,” “value reasoning,” and “logic” as these are explained in wikipedia under Robert S. Hartman, and value science.

Second, I’m not refering to a “concept,” such as “justice,” or “good,” or “evil,” but to the process of reasoning that progressives use in the course of weighing the relative importance of public policy options and proposals. I have used the term “progressive logic” merely to summarize this process of value reasoning, which is as old as the hills.

The article progressivism gives some indication of the value reasoning of progressives. Also such historians as Richard Hofstadter, Gabriel Kolko, and Howard Zinn provide books full of examples of the way progressives have reasoned about their policy choices. Progressive social critics, like Erich Fromm and Charles A. Reich also follow “progressive logic,” but without using that exact term (as far as I know).

I can see now that I should have included a selected bibliography to give the reader a clearer sense that Progressive Logic simply describes a reasoning process followed by progressives. I’m sure the writers above (who are still alive) would agree that there is no debate among social critics and social scientists about the existence of this reasoning process, because its existence is so obvious to all who have studied progressive politics.

After I put in a more complete “references” section, I’m sure your objection will be met, and that you’ll withdraw your opposition. Just wait and see.Wjkellpro 01:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, a whole bunch of adspeak. Once that's removed, I doubt we'd have anything left to keep. - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm still not particularly happy with the tone of the first paragraph, but this is loads better than what was up before. Keep for now. - Mgm|(talk) 08:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment article author has expressed willingness to adjust article see here I agreed to help him bring it up to par. Come back after a few revisions and re-consider. J\/\/estbrook       15:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * keep as the article has some merit and can be developed further. J\/\/estbrook       15:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

22:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Hey Gazpacho and Stifle, take another look at my article Progressive Logic. I've benefitted greatly from the assistance of JWestbrook. Please tell me any specific objections you have, and I'll try to satisfy them. Others have changed their votes, I'd like to work with you on this. Wjkellpro 22:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Folks! I'm new to this game, so I'm just learning the rules. Actually, I thought there weren't any rules, so I could promote my new book here. But I can take a hint. I'll show that Mgm guy that I really do have something to say! User: wjkellpro
 * Hi Again! I have taken out all the advertising. I have now posted what I think can qualify as a genuine encyclopedia article. I invite you all to check it out.  I think wikipedia is a great innovation, and I'd like to be a part of it.  Wjkellpro 22:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Clean up, an article on this subject would be beneficial to the project, a major reformatting is what's needed. --Robert Harrisontalk contrib 03:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Shrink to paragraph and Merge into Progressivism or Delete as per Chadlupkes' reasoning. --Robert Harrisontalk contrib 15:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Stifle 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I had a request from Wjkellpro to reconsider my vote. I have checked the article and it is still masses of original research and/or a book advert. Please see WP:NOR. My vote stands. Stifle 01:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Take another look
 * Keep and Rename or Merge, interesting but the title seems wrong, could it be moved to a better name or merged into another article? - FrancisTyers 01:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment How about moving to progressive values or values of american progressives? - 18:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Shrink to paragraph and Merge into Progressivism, I've changed the framing of the first few paragraphs to reflect this as a thesis, and not a peer-reviewed political theory. Dr. Kelleher, I'm intrigued by your ideas, but I think they need a little more support before something this large has a place on this site.  I consider myself to be a very strong progressive, and much of this article is duplicated in your book, so doesn't really need to be added to Wikipedia on its own.  A single paragraph referencing your thesis on the Progressivism page would be more appropriate.  Feel free to contact me offwiki if you like.  Chadlupkes 20:33, 27 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.