Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social justice


 * 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 SNOW keep. (Non-admin closure)  " Pepper "  @ 17:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Social justice

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is full of original research and is unencyclopedic and reads like an academic paper or article trying to push a certain point of view. ModernGeek (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Not a valid reason for deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep is not a valid AfD suggestion, is it? Greglocock (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - impenetrable jargonese. Greglocock (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Article has been here since the beginning and social justice is a well-known concept; no attempt by nom to pursue WP:BEFORE was done before nomination, and this feels disruptive, so a speedy keep can indeed be asked for.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Would say Speedy Keep but in addition to a lousy nomination, SK requires no delete !vote at all, seemingly without respect to their validity/merit. AfD is not cleanup, the article is self-evidently not all original research such that deletion is needed, "impenetrable jargonese" is not relevant, etc. Subject is obviously notable. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as the topic is notable but it does indeed need work. For example, the lead credits the term to Luigi Taparelli which seems quite a dubious claim as he used it in Italian in the 1840s while the OED has William Thompson using it in English in 1824. Andrew D. (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid deletion rationale presented. Resolute 19:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. One wonders the intentions behind this nomination. The fact that a reader might struggle to understand an article does not mean it should be eliminated.  That it may collide with a reader’s political views does not merit deletion.  Original research means that an idea is new.  The article is about a key concept with a long history and an obvious notability, delineated in the article itself, and featured in most literature about justice.  It is older than when Plato and Socrates wrestled with it.  The term itself was coined in the 19th Century, an elder among us.  That the article needs work, there is no doubts.  But to lightly delete the work of hundreds of editors through the years is not part of the Wikipedia spirit.  Moreover, to totally free this article from its jargon would mean to dilute it.  After all, Wikipedia is to educate.  Rather than tagging an article for deletion with a few words that fail to provide a reasonable argument users should work to improve it.  Caballero / / Historiador    ☊  20:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: Is there a mechanism of review in place for accepting these types of nominations (WP:BEFORE)?  Caballero / / Historiador    ☊  04:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article needs work, but deleting it won't solve the problem. -The Great iShuffle (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. More importantly the "original research" should be removed if it exists, and the page improved - but that goes for everywhere in wikipedia. Deleting does not fix the content. Koncorde (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep needs cleanup like a few other million other articles but not deletion. Here are some reliable sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep not a valid reason for deletion.2.98.117.9 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2016 (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.