Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Educational inequality


 * 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 both through running its course and via SNOW. it seems that over the past week of AfD there has been an effort to improve it's references and upon my view I understand it needs work. However, consensus clearly shows a unanimous desire for keep, though many of these !votes admit that it needs work to avoid coming back here again. Valley2 city ‽ 01:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Educational inequality

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has not improved since the original AfD. I've held off in case it did. At present it is an essay with references and a soapbox. It pushes a view. That has not changed since it was written first. WP is not the place for essays and soapbox arguments. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article needs cleanup and more refs. I have reservations with the section "Some children are more equal than others", but delete whole article? No. There are useful and verified facts and many online references offer room for improvement.--Vejvančický (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable topic. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. AfD is to discuss for deletion.  And this article is mostly soapbox trash.  So it should either be sorted out or be deleted.  The name of the article may be notable, but the content is an OR essay.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Keep - encyclopedic content, can be rescued by cutting out the edubabble cruft. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Checked the histories and found the first AfD HERE. You're correct, it has only seen modest improvement. It will need the careful attentions of an expert in the field.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs cleanup and improvement but the topic is  notable and encyclopedic. -- J mundo 18:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep From a quick glance at the sources the article doesnt seem a strong case of OR. Its certainly an important subject - while the article isnt written in the best encyclopedic tone, it seems to introduce the topic well enough.  Im reluctant to make too many copy edits in case I misrepresent the subject, perhaps you could tag it with Expert per Schmidt's comment? FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete  actually. I normally don't believe that deletion is the way to go with a badly written article, but this one seems to be just pointed in the wrong direction for the term.  "Educational inequality occurs where the education system is contributing to or maintaining inequality." I can't find a single source that supports that definition of the term but the entire article seems based on that definition.  The common use of the term doesn't require that the educational system be contributing.  There is still an educational inequality if there is a gap and the system is working to fix it.   I agree that the term is notable and parts of the article are recoverable.  A complete rewrite would be fine too. Hobit (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The definition you picked out was written by me on Monday,  the older | version  was perhaps more accurate if less clear, sorry if thats the case.  From a quick look at the literature I cant find a good concise definition to source from, but I think I've now been able to make the lede more NPOV. I found a source to add that mentions the education system acting to reproduce inequality.  Hope this is okay for now, I still think waiting for expert attention is better than deleting this important and very notable topic.   FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not too worried about the wording. It's just that the term is being defined in a way that doesn't jive with the sources. Not even the first source, which mainly deals with the issue as a problem with the educational system, defines the term this way. It's like having an article on "engineering failures" and defining it as "An engineering failure is caused by a poorly designed computer system". It's only a part of what an engineering failure is, and states that's the only source of the problem. One way or another the article, as it stands, needs to go IMO. It's just that bad. A complete rewrite would perhaps be preferable, but either way it needs to go IMO. Hobit (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several aspects of educational inquality - see this source, for example.  If the article currently concentrates upon one them, this is no reason to delete; it is a reason to expand and restructure. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In general I agree. But in this case it's a situation where someone has defined "color" as "pink" and written an article about it.  I'm not sure what can be saved.  You're probably right, but I don't like something that is this (IMO) highly misleading in an article. Ignore that.  The source you provided is so outstanding I think we'd be remiss in not having an article on the topic even for a short while.  I'm really tempted to stubify it and start over later (when the semester is out).  I _really_ dislike the current article.  So Keep but rewrite  Hobit (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.