Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social causation vs downward drift


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  05:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Social causation vs downward drift

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Essay and original research and synthesis; apparently somebody's school paper about the intersection of two theories, turned into an "article". Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep/rename. This is titled and structured as an essay rather than an encyclopaedia article, but the actual content seems fine. It's well referenced, written from a neutral point of view, and I'm not seeing much if any WP:SYNTH. It could just be renamed to something like socioeconomic status and mental health, which is certainly a notable topic, and given a thorough copyedit for encyclopaedic tone. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete this essay, created by a single-purpose account, possibly as an educational project, because its subject lacks claims to notability. Where are the search hits with the article's title? -The Gnome (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I linked to dozens of high quality sources on this topic above. There's also a reasonable number of GScholar hits for the specific terms in the title, though "social selection" seems to be preferred over "downward drift" (understandably...) . Did you actually look? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings. And, yes, I "did look." What you're saying is the same as saying, "Hey, my neighbor is called 'Atlantic Washington' and he's notable because you get tons of online hits for 'Atlantic' and for 'Washington'." Your title is not 'Social selection.' Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. At all. This article is about two competing hypotheses (social causation and downward drift/social selection) that explain a phenomenon (the link between social class and mental illness). The links that I've provided above show that the phenomenon is notable and that both hypotheses are individually notable. We don't keep or delete articles based purely on keyword searches for their title. You have to actually read the article and apply some common sense. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will make is as simple as possible: Let "subject A versus subject B" be subject C. In that case, you cannot argue that, because A and B are individually notable, subject C is also notable. Subject C has to be on its own independently notable, which means, in our case, that the subject "social causation vs downward drift" altogether must be notable; not the one and the other party separately. End of story. -The Gnome (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't argue that. "Subject C" is notable overall. "Subject A" and "subject B" also happen to be independently notable. You are arguing semantics over the title, but titles are easily changed. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no "semantics" here. You have to demonstrate that the subject is independently notable per Wikipedia standards, under any variant of the contested article's current title. It truly does not get any simpler. -The Gnome (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I'll refer you one last time to the sources I've provided above, that demonstrate it. I don't know if you are deliberately ignoring them, or what, but there doesn't seem much point in continuing to discuss it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No problem. Here's the scalpel work on those sources:
 * Primo, they're all searches, i.e. the brute result of an online search. Your links do not take us to a stand-alone piece of text; we're supposed to either admire how many hits your searches dig up, or perhaps to examine each text in them ourselves. But that is NOT how things work here, because it is you who has to provide the specific and non-generic evidence of notability.
 * Segundo, what were the words used for those searches anyway?
 * "socioeconomic status and mental health"
 * "socioeconomic status and mental illness"
 * "social class and mental illness"
 * "social class and mental health"
 * "social causation"
 * "downward drift"
 * "social selection"
 * See what you did there? You used some of the results of those searches to create a text about the link between social causation and downward drift. You showed us how you put the article together, even if in such a crude form, rather than offer a justification for the uncontested, clear, independent notability of the subject in the title.
 * The search, incidentally, for "downward drift" is a hoot; results include mostly unrelated items such as Markov chain models of the downward drift of particles. And the article is not even presenting properly what it's trying to say! The text implies there's a causal link between socioeconomic status and mental status, yet you titled the piece as if these are adversary or opposite causes. (X versus Z).
 * Essentially, you provide as evidence of notability the sources for your text even when they're about subjects unrelated to the subject at hand. Take #7: it's all about the causes behind people advancing in life or falling behind, e.g. peer influence, perceptions of social support ("data came from a sample of victims of natural disaster in Mexico"), etc.
 * For the umpteenth time, then, Wikipedia is not the place to publicize essays, no matter how well intentioned, beautifully presented, and well sourced. Wikipedia is all about sources; for the larger part of a text, it's the sources that we are quoting or paraphrasing. -The Gnome (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * P.S. Please note that the above is not a claim that the causal link between socioeconomic status and mental status is nonexistent, weak, strong, or anything else. I'm not taking sides on the subject itself, although, as it happens I know a thing or two about it. All I'm arguing is whether this essay merits a place in the main space of the encyclopaedia. -The Gnome (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't write this article,, and without wishing to toot my own horn, after participating in several hundred AfDs and closing several hundred more, I think I have a fairly good idea of "how things work here".
 * Case in point, the onus is in fact on those nominating or !voting to delete to demonstrate that there is valid grounds for deletion (e.g. the topic of the article isn't notable), not on the creator of the article or those !voting keep to spoon-feed you a case for notability. I linked to search results that show ample sources on this topic. I am not saying that all the results are relevant—clearly there are some completely unrelated papers in there—but many are and I don't think it's too much to ask to scan the abstracts. If you really insist, I can link to the individual papers I think are relevant, but at this point I'm not sure whether you're actually disputing the notability, or just lecturing me on my perceived failure to come up with an appropriate title for an article that I have never even edited?
 * Wikipedia is not the place to publish essays, but we don't delete articles because they are essays. We improve them into something encyclopaedic, or leave it for someone else to do so. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have said enough. If, as you correctly say, "Wikipedia is not the place to publish essays," then we delete essays. This is what both logic and Wikipedia commands. If it so happens that the text under the AfD process has value (it's about some clearly notable subject, etc), we either send it to the draft space to see if it can be salvaged, or we improve it speedily. O/wise it's blow up time. I now rest my case. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:15, 16 June 2018 (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.