Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxury belief


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Luxury belief

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Page does not meet notability as it is a concept essentially by a single author, and there is already a subheading on the Rob_K._Henderson_(author) page concerning this idea. Any content (if there is any) of additional value can be placed there and this article can be made into a redirection. A previous editor requested deletion, but that was reverted without discussion. There is little to no support for this article on the associated talk page. PaigePhault (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Psychology,  and Social science.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  00:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * this page might incorporate more perspectives cross referencing, ACTIVISM, SOCIAL INJUSTICE, PRIVILEGE, POSTURING  Comcredo (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The terminology is (correctly) attributed to Rob Henderson. However, the concept is much older, and may be used in many other contexts than family structure.
 * More important, it is used all the time, and it is quite important, to understand the conflict between materialistic and moral ideologies characterising modern debate. Gamle gnavne mænd (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The concept has been the subject of a New York Times arcticle (see https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/opinion/campus-protests-progressive-henderson.html). The concept can thus reasonably be said to be in wide circulation, and it is useful to have a page describing it. 2A00:23CC:B720:AC01:3588:782F:4F03:50B9 (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coined by a single author (as most terms are), but apparently adopted in academic writing. --bender235 (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The term was coined in 2019 according to Henderson in the NYT opinion piece he just published. Keeping in mind WP::SET there are only 50 hits for that term, and if you search without Henderson the number drops in half. A cursory scan of those remaining mentions does not provide much evidence of independent support for this term. Maybe a 'keep' supporter has the patience to dig through this to find one? PaigePhault (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The mention that this is a "concept by a single author" is puzzling, as many articles would have to be deleted under that criterion. Perhaps the nominator meant to suggest that this concept has not been discussed by other authors, but this is clearly not the case. The notion of a "luxury belief" (or at least the term itself) is recent, but has already received widespread coverage. Henderson himself has discussed it in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Telegraph, the Times, etc. Restricting ourselves to articles independent of the subject (i.e. not written by Henderson), on a quick search I found the following articles where the term "luxury belief" is the primary focus:
 * A new book rebukes the “luxury beliefs” of America’s upper class
 * What ‘Luxury Beliefs’ Reveal About the Ruling Class
 * Good Marriages Are Good. Bad Marriages Are, Well, Bad.
 * The Political Right Has Luxury Beliefs, Too
 * Forget your handbag, the latest status symbol du jour is your luxury beliefs
 * Education’s Enduring Love Affair with ‘Luxury Beliefs’
 * Astaire (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of those not written by Henderson, it look like 100% of them are about Henderson or his book. This supports the argument that the citations and supporting material all belong on Henderson biography page with a redirect. Making that page better and more encyclopedic and it's better than having a poorly sourced article. PaigePhault (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wiki articles about a notable concept coined by a particular person deserve room to breathe beyond the person's own page. The articles I listed above are not "100% about Henderson or his book" as you claim. They certainly mention the book as a way of introducing a novel terminology to the reader, but they go beyond parroting Henderson's own discussion of the concept and make the term their own. This article argues that right-wingers also have their own luxury beliefs, in contrast to Henderson who mainly focused on the left wing. This article disputes Henderson's characterization of marriage as a luxury belief. This article analyzes luxury beliefs in public school education, which Henderson did not discuss. There is clearly enough substance here for an independent page. Astaire (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep. There does appear to be scholarly uptake of this concept sufficient to justify having an article. BD2412  T 00:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep, Someone somewhere has to come up with any particular term and put it in writing, why would this be a strike against inclusion? There is substantial coverage and usage of luxury beliefs, in manners independent of and divergent from Henderson's own applications, throughout RS. It's certainly not just Henderson himself that is working with and applying the term. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep  Bottom line is that it passes the WP:SIGCOV bar. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sources. The fact that the sources attribute the term's origin to Henderson is evidence that it is a notable concept, rather than a few scattered attestations with different meanings. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Serious, sustained coverage in reliable sources. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Henderson may have coined the term but there is lots of scholarly engagement with the concept beyond his own writing. See here from Samahita (UC Dublin), Barry (Male Psychology), Anomaly and Faria (Cambridge), Green (Public Policy and Management), Smith, Atkins (PN Review), Dzenis and Faria (Journal of Political Ideologies), and more. Plenty of WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG tests of sourcing and a standalone article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2024 (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.