Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inclusion (value and practice)

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 was redirect to Belongingness. It's hard to tease a real consensus out of this rambling discussion , but the redirect seems about right.

Orthogonal to that, @Notecardforfree:, it's really not useful to provide summaries such as your note to closing admin. Whoever closes the debate is perfectly capable of reading the discussion and coming to their own conclusion. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion (value and practice)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Since at least 2007, editors have pointed out that this is a WP:CONTENTFORK of material that is presented in much more detail at social exclusion. Additionally, this topic appears to be the product significant WP:SYNTH. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am copying and pasting a comment that was left on this article's talk page:

This article should not be deleted but it should be developed. Firstly I don't think inclusion is the same topic as social exclusion or marginalization. The latter is a problem that needs to be diagnosed, and is often treated by sociologists. The former is a value that is becoming more pervasive in political discourse in several areas. If you google politics of inclusion you find articles about race, cultural diversity, gender, about medicine, about poverty and about disability - I think we need something that looks at this ideal as a shared value in all these discourses. I don't think inclusion in disability is a separate kind of inclusion from race or gender. If you want to find different kinds of inclusion there would be inclusion in education, inclusion in the economy, inclusion in politics. The article as it stands needs to be developed (I might do that after I have researched it a bit - I started my research in inclusion on Wikipedia). But you need to find something if you put 'inclusion' into the search box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemilia Tertia (talk • contribs) 21:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the signature for Aemilia Tertia reflects the signature from the talk page comment, and I also reformatted the section heading so that it could be inserted into this discussion. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comment above by Aemilia Tertia, it is not clear to me how this topic is any different from the section about social inclusion at the article for social exclusion (see Social exclusion#Social inclusion). In fact, it appears that most scholars treat inclusion and exclusion as two sides of the same coin; scholars who discuss values that promote inclusion do so as a means to combat exclusion. If you read WP:CONTENTFORK, you will see that Wikipedia guidelines proscribe the creation of multiple articles about the same subject; the content in this article is already discussed in much more depth at the article for social exclusion. If you read WP:PAGEDECIDE, you will also see that topics should be covered in a single article when "the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page." Here, the discussion at this article about theories for promoting inclusion can be better understood if read within the context of the article about social exclusion. In light of the aforementioned policies, we should delete this article as a standalone page and incorporate any relevant material into the article for social exclusion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- this essentially seems to be an essay advocating inclusion. GAB^Hello! 21:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GAB, were you referring to Aemilia Tertia's comment above or the article itself? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not clarifying, I meant the article. GAB^Hello! 21:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am bit conflicted here. On one hand, Social exclusion#Social inclusion only talks about social inclusion programs as envisioned by European bureaucrats: political and economic programs to help the poor, the disadvantaged, and the discriminated against. The sociological and psychological concepts of inclusion are a lot broader than that. Sociometer theory, for instance, considers inclusion in many different kinds of groups. So there is room for a broad concept article about inclusion that touches on many different aspects. On the other hand, the current article is full of synthesis with no reliance on secondary sources. Although not an ideal solution, I am inclined to redirect to Belongingness until an article based on secondary sources like Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion can be written. --Mark viking (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: There is 3-1 consensus to not keep this page. I would recommend deleting this article, and then if any editor is interested, they can create a redirect to an appropriate page. Furthermore, deletion may also incentivize the creation of a more appropriate article at a more appropriate title. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to social exclusion or elsewhere until somebody who is knowledgeable and an experienced article writer writes an intelligible and better-sourced article. At present, the content reads like a social sciences buzzword salad or essay, and doesn't establish notability for the topic. Sandstein 11:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.