Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Working class education

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working class education

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

Nominating instead of proding this article in order to get outside input. I question the appropriateness of an article of this nature. It has strong POV issues and demonstrates Card stacking. Multiple claims are stated as fact which are merely the conclusions of the works cited (practically opinions). These conclusions appear to be based on weak evidence (Causal fallacy). It reads closer to an essay than an encyclopedia article. It presents an implicit US-centric view. I strongly suspect that there is WP:OR present, in terms of the interpretation of the sources, but I can't be certain without reading them.

I don't believe that the topic itself is inappropriate; merely any form of this article (WP:RUBBISH). I did what I could to remove the WP:PEACOCK terms, but I cannot see any reasonable way to resolve the above issues and retain much any of this article. Verdatum (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to meet the WP:OR standard of WP:DUCK. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be worked into a criticism section of an article on public education. The title of the article presupposes the distinction between working class education and non-working class education. This discussion could also be incorporated into articles covering education in various nations and cultures. I sense that this essay is United States centered. Racepacket (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BEFORE, not complete crap. See Outliers (book) that has looked at this topic. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been no proper attempt to engage with the topic - the article doesn't even have a talk page. A perfunctory search immediately shows that there are hundreds of books about this topic which therefore has massive notability. A class-based approach to education is still a live issue in the UK and so there are many more sources to come. The nomination therefore fails our deletion policy and should be kept in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't bother to start a discussion on the talkpage because I examined the edit history; the bulk of the article was created by a single-purpose account that hasn't been active in over a year; most other edits were related to style or upkeep. Again, I'm not arguing the notability of the topic. I'm arguing the article's appropriateness of style and salvageability. Even with WP:IMPERFECT in mind, I don't see any way to salvage any of the existing text, and I believe doing so would be more difficult than writing a new article from scratch. I have no strong objection to stubbing the article. But because of the topic's sub-article nature, I couldn't think of any useful way to do that. "Working class education refers to the education of children of working class socioeconomic standing" just felt uninformative and irritating to readers who had been linked there; not that "what links here" points to very much. -Verdatum (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simple way of attracting relevant editors to an article is to place relevant project templates on its talk page. I have made a start. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or weak Merge - article appears to have been created from whole cloth by a single single-purpose account. It is a one-sided discussion of the issue and highly US-centric. The effort would have been better-spent working on Education in the United States article. could perhaps be reworked as a subsection of that article? RayBarker (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that the article has been "created from whole-cloth" is obviously false as the article contains several citations to good sources. Its focus upon the USA is not a reason to delete; rather it is a reason to add additional material or, failing that, to tag and discuss the matter at the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider a merge to Achievement gap in the United States. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2010 (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.