Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invisible Class Empire

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 09:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Class Empire

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

Page on NN term of NN book, created to coordinate a as a school project Travelbird (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Not Notable, and wikipedia is not the urban dictionary. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is based upon a concept in two sociological textbooks, The New Class Society and Social Inequality and Social Stratification in US Society, with the former being the progenitor of the term and the latter dropping "Class" from "Invisible Class Empire." This is not slang that one would find in the Urban Dictionary, but is rather a technical scholastic term used in sociology and other social science fields. Asdimd (talk) 20:19, 5 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to show that this term is widely accepted in the scientific/historical community. So far it only seems to be used in the one book. The other book uses "Invisible Empire" which is a different term. From this sit seems that the term is not widely used and thus does not warrant its own Wikipedia page as it at this stage seems to be more of a proposed concept. Travelbird (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, same term different wording. By what you stated above, then any interchangeable terms should have independent pages for each term. If redirect for Invisible Empire (Sociology) => Invisible Class Empire should be created. In response to the nomination: Term meets notability as it's in at least 2 sources (likely more if I cared to go look, but don't have the extra time during finals week. -_-), and book is notable as it is used as an academic text at several Universities. AndrewN ^talk 20:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Article covers a non-notable neologism that does not exist outside a couple of obscure and soon-to-be-forgotten books. This article appears to be part of some ill-conceived class project cooked up by an associate prof at Oklahoma State U., whose students would be better served if they were assigned to write normal papers. Belchfire-TALK 05:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a project conceived by my self, these students' instructor, but is part of projects for the Wikipedia Education Program. Asdimd (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that the Wikipedia Education Project is ill-conceived and not beneficial to students, then you should direct your comments towards the responsible persons at the Wikimedia Foundation rather than take it out on the students who are working to create this article. As for your delete comment: How do you know the books cited are "obscure" and "soon-to-be-forgotten?" From a quick glance over your user page, it appears you are obsessed with motor sports which leads me to believe you don't have a background in Social Sciences. Furthermore, to the best of my understanding, this is not a Neologism, and is actually a term that has been in use in social sciences for several years now and is widely-enough used it's in at least 2 text books. In my opinion, this is far from a "newly-coined term" as WP:NEO describes. AndrewN ^talk 20:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is a student project as part of the Wikipedia United States Education Program. The article covers an academic term from the Sociology field and is referenced in AT LEAST 2 academic texts. The article is still undergoing development as part of a class project. AndrewN ^talk 20:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep C. Wright Mills' book came out in the 50's, Eisenhower's speech about the military-industrial complex was in 1961, and Kennedy's speech to The American Newspaper Publishers Association was made in the same year... This topic has been around for a long time though the term changes, and so the article needs to remain, only with some 'disambiguation.'Bsmith2012 (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's sufficient sourcing, but it needs expansion; it's asserted it should be in more books--as it's a class project, the class should now go and find them. I note it is the responsibility of those running a school project to try to have the project's articles clearly notable, and sufficiently sourced, to fit our ordinary rules--and, to ensure a good experience for the students by making reasonably certain there will be no good faith challenge. And the Online Ambassadors should have enough understanding of WP both to do this, and to make an effective defense if the article is challenged after all. They should know that they must defend the article , and are no more entitled to rely on status than anyone else here, or blame another editor for not having an appropriate academic background. "on the basis of my understanding" is not an argument here--it has to be shown by sources. (as I said, I think it is shown by good sources to a fully sufficient degree, which is the necessary and appropriate argument.)

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.