G'day Ben,
Exactly -- this is not an inclusionist project (and certainly not a "radically inclusionist" one); it has nothing to say about what topics should be included and what should not. It is about improving articles about topics that are uncontroversially encyclopedic and includable because lately some people have been deleting them.
See Andrew Lih on the topic (and you don't see him pissed off very often): http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/
He makes a good point late in his post about the changing attitudes to inclusion/deletion: newbies are far more deletionist, and further, do so without any real clue of what they're talking about.
I have become more inclusionist over time. However, the community --- by which I mean the squeaky wheels --- have moved much further back than I've moved forward, so that it now seems that I am massively out of step. I've noticed that a lot of the old-timers whom I respect have seen their attitudes shift similar amounts relative to "the community".
There are plenty of crap articles out there in this wide, brown, wonderful encyclopaedia of ours about important topics. Unless these articles are improved, they will be deleted. It is a sad reflection on the Wikipedia community today that those who dare to write good articles are looked upon with suspicion.
Wikipedia is not a project to write an encyclopaedia. It's a project to attack those of us who have the temerity to try to produce something worthwhile, in the name of "increasing quality". If you make an article better, then it can't be deleted ... and if you spend all your time here doing dodgy things like that, well, all that can be said is: we don't want your filthy kind here. Get out, you unconscionable bastard, before Steven and Pedro and the hundreds like them throw you out.