Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White working class

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.

White working class

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article is POV and not encyclopaedic. BigDom More tea, vicar? 13:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Original research, and very POV. Article is basically an attack on the supposed "WLMC". Stonemason89 (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept of the white working class is not original, being noticed in numerous sources about several countries - just see the search links above. The article should therefore be kept for improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's take a look at the initial article, the piece as it sat when it was was originally proposed for deletion, shall we? Sometimes that's the best way to determine the intent of an article:

"'White working class (frequently abbreviated "WWC") is the portion of the working class composed of white people.

"It is contrasted with the white liberal middle class (frequently abreviated WLMC) as a voting block and an exemplar of intra-racial class conflict[1]

"The WLMC know that the WWC hate “The Other” – the blacks, the Asians, the Muslims. But it does not occur to them that they themselves are the greatest Other-haters of all, in their revulsion of the WWC who are too close to themselves for comfort, and whom they use to project upon their own sins, their own real and reverse racism."

This is absolutely white nationalist POV. It has subsequently "been made more encyclopedic" by the creator — now it's a POV trojan horse, in my estimation. Which is to say: a seemingly serious and scholarly article (with a link to a pdf of a paper from the Brookings Insitution, no less) which is DESIGNED to advance a particular POV objective on the basis of the wording of the article title. If it doesn't explicitly push the POV as hard as it did, it probably will again in the future, if allowed to sneak through the deletion process.

The fundamental "thesis" being pushed in this article — that there is "intra-racial class conflict" within the white communities of various multi-racial countries between the white middle class and the white working class on the basis of the racial views of the latter — is a contrived fringe theory with no widespread scholarly acceptance. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Edited: Carrite (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that the creator of the article, Jabowery, is a self-confessed Stormfront activist who originally came here as a meatpuppet to push POV: [1]. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The white working class is quite significant politically and culturally in the UK. For example, the BBC recently produced an entire season of programmes with this theme. A topic with this level of coverage is not fringe. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure essay, pure POV. There could possibly be a reasonable, sociologically based article on this subject. But this isn't it - and probably any such article would quickly become a POV storm and vandalism target. The sources provided are all POV themselves, things like op-ed articles and Fox News "analysis", carefully chosen to contrast the "white working class" with the "liberal" middle class. I don't see any way this article could be saved by editing. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that, while the article defines a popular term and cites news that trace the use of the term and address of the group to which it refers through recent political developments, it is not of significant value to the public. The urban dictionary will suffice to define the term to any who wish for it. I do not perceive this to be worthy of encyclopedic recognition on Wikipedia ([[WP:Notability). The article also violates WP:NPOV though author(s) tried to reach a neutral point of view by citing several distinct points of view; they all agree, so nothing is gained and it remains non-neutral. Only if enough editors are willing to contribute verifiable conclusions from scholarly research (the article only says that relevant studies exist and omits their conclusions) should this article be kept. Paulmnguyen (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article currently stands, it is a from a POV and written in a non-encyclopedic tone. While this may indeed by a notable subject, the article would require a fundamental rewrite, and can therefore be deleted and recreated if it is NPOV and not an essay. —fetch ·comms 01:30, 11 September 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.