Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainstreaming

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 Delete. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstreaming

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

Incomprehensible mess of largely unsourced management buzzword blather. The article itself asserts that this concept of "mainstreaming" lacks a definition. The article is also largely a coatrack for a vaguely defined and very likely not notable concept in EU bureaucratese. Should be deleted and redirected to Mainstream (disambiguation), which has some notable uses of the generic word "mainstreaming". Sandstein 22:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The above AfD proposal reads more like a rant against management buzzwords than a reasoned proposition. Referenced articles provide definitions and establish that this is a term used in the real world. Room for improvement of course, but that's not grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable concept, but the first sentence currently reads "Pilot or policy Mainstreaming is the act of broadening the application of a change or innovation from a small-scale pilot to the whole of a programme or policy domain." A fair bit of savage pruning and rewriting in the English language will be required here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - I honestly don;t see a distinct topic here. All that is indicated is that the word "mainstreaming" has been used in various contetxs, sometimes in education, to describe moving from pilot to a full rollout. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's clearly psychobabble, but it's notable psychobabble, and has taken on a life of its own in popular culture as well as in scholarship. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | express _ 18:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the concept may be of relatively recent formulation, but is certainly clearly enough defined to be usable, and its success is, not without difficulty, measurable. It is methodologically notable and is in everyday use among people developing policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TobyJ (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment - Though more people have argued to keep the article, the arguments in favour are not really based on any substantial policy or guideline. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; article seeks to promote a vague neologism that's defined in meaningless, glittering generalities: ....act of broadening the application of a change or innovation from a small-scale pilot to the whole of a programme or policy domain. It involves recognising that the results of an experiment are positive and the learning deserves to be applied more widely. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be complete bollocks, and indeed rather resembles one of the examples on that very page. Ou tis (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see any arguments to dissuade me from thinking that the concept is still complete nonsense yet notable; see WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mostly a verbose definition more suitable for Wiktionary if edited to be more concise. DocTree (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly redirect to Mainstream (disambiguation)), per WP:NOTDICT. The term is used (Mainstreaming in education, Gender mainstreaming, Youth mainstreaming), but we're not writing a dictionary here: that's for wikt:mainstream#Verb. -- Trevj (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2012 (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.