Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Class envy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 class conflict. I know the majority says delete, but Dhartung's alternative suggestion seems to be ideal. Singularity 06:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Class envy[edit]
- Class envy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Dictionary definition with a generous helping of original research added. Unsourced since mid-2006. It's possible that a decent article could be written on the subject, but the existing one is so bad that we'd be better off nuking it and starting over from scratch. *** Crotalus *** 04:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Kleinzach (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nuke it and keep it dead, non-notable, flirts with WP:NEO. -Jahnx (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and source. This was an important term in the 19th century, but is now mostly seen in academic circles and -- oddly -- US Republican rhetoric (as a supposed driver behind American liberalism). It is certainly not a neologism. It is a key trigger for Marx in the development of working-class consciousness. Alternatively redirect to a slightly-less-essayish class conflict. --Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- per nominator...--Camaeron (t/c) 11:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Envy which could use a section of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:No original research or WP:NEO. Prolongued failure to produce reliable sources for the claims is an indicative that the article is either original research or neologism.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:06, 28 March 2008 (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.