Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Functionality creep

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 Featuritis. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Functionality creep

Functionality creep (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Already exists in far greater detail at creeping featurism. Also there's no such term as "functionality creep". Would have been a prod but for the ongoing RFC on the issue. froth^{T C} 20:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The term does exist, see a Google Search with Wikipedia and its mirrors removed. Not many results, but the results are definitely real uses of the term, and outside of software also. Creeping featurism appears to only apply in the case of computer software, so I can see "Functionality creep" becoming a valid related article. The two could be merged, also, but one name would have to be chosen over the other. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Many of those results are wikipedia mirrors. And there's very little content to merge --froth^{T C} 20:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - that 'creeping featurism' article is bizarre. Why on earth isn't it 'feature creep', which is by far the more accepted term but currnetly exists only as a redirect? I have never heard the term used 'creeping featurism' used before except in this article.

• Creeping featurism and featuritis, and their spoonerizations feeping creaturism and feeping creaturitis are extremely well established in the hacker/programmer communities. Cf. the Jargon File. I knew that even as a common geek who can't even write real code. I had never, however, heard of the feature/function creep form. 86.56.48.12 04:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge anything useful to 'creeping featurism', then rename to 'feature creep'. Artw 21:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And have feature creep redirect to creeping featurism? sounds good --froth^{T C} 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • We'd need to move creeping feaurism to feature creep obviously. Since that would mean getting rid if the existing redirect it's move than I can be bothered with right now. I considered suggesting scope creep be merged as well, since it often amounts to the same thing, but they're sufficiently different aspects of the same phenomena that seperate articles are probably deserved. Artw 21:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually just Delete. The essay on SSNs is not worth saving Artw 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to creeping featurism, which has a redirect for feature creep already. Tarinth 23:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect (and merge if needed), honestly don't mind too much though which ones gets redirected to where though. Just obviously we have at least one too many pages at the moment. Mathmo ^Talk 07:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Having just looked at the pages more carefully, I'm having second thoughts. "Functionality creep" can have much wider application than merely in software, maybe it should be kept instead. Ah well, whatever. I'm halfway in between a redirect or a keep. Mathmo ^Talk 07:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Functionality Creep" is not the accepted terminology, but rather, "Function Creep". The issue came to a head a month ago after a user vandalized both pages and the "function creep" entry became a protected re-direct. The person behind the controversy (he who is causing the problems: the curator of the "functionality creep" page, user: Kreepy Krawly) is engaing in personal attacks, accusing users like Mathmo of uploading viruses, and posting personal information against another user's wishes - in this case, mine. Not only should the "functionality creep" page be deleted and/or turned into a protected re-direct back to the original "function creep" page, but the user Kreepy krawly should be banned from this site permanently. Also, he is posting under a variety of pseudonyms, so those users should also be deleted. Additionally, there should be a ban placed on anything coming from the IP address 71.210.62.238. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.139.121 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Checking the usual resources, it is clear that the term is not generally used to mean "creeping featurism" as the article claims. In fact, the term does not appear used by anybody in such a fashion. Appears to me that the author of the article was engaging in original research. --ScienceApologist 13:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- does appear to be OR for a neologism (I don't doubt that the phrase "functionality creep" has been used, but not that is has become a meaningful phrase when taken out of context.) Sdedeo (tips) 17:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 10:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect - As best I can tell from a Google search, this is the pet phrase of a small group which is opposed to universal identificaction documents. Let's just say that it is not a good sign when a googling of "funtionality creep" turns up this article first followed almost exclusively by the Wikipedia mirrors. The non-Wikipedia web pages which use this phrase are all of the anti-identification genre. There is no evidence of broad or varied usage of this term. --EMS | Talk 18:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Functionality creep and Creeping featurism to Feature creep; the Jargon File may use the quasi-cute "Creeping featurism", but nobody else does. --Gwern (contribs) 19:30 11 January 2007 (GMT)
• Keep. I've just been watching this video, wherein at 09:18 into the video I heard the presenter mention function creep, and not knowing the term, I paused the video and looked up the term in Wikipedia, where I was happy to find an article, but concerned that that article --the usefulness of which I've directly experienced-- was being considered for deletion. (I later found when I continued watching the video, that the term also was subsequently explained in the video as well, but that doesn't detract from my point.) 86.56.48.12 03:45, 12 January 2007 (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.