Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rise of the Meritocracy


 * 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. Closing early; not exactly a case of speedy keep based on the discussion, but the emerging consensus is sufficiently clear that there is minimal need to keep this discussion open. Alex Shih (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The Rise of the Meritocracy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:Notability (books), there are only two references, one is from the The Rise of the Meritocracy's author, Michael Young and the other is a chapter within a book about Young. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 11.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Quoting the NY Times article that I have added as a reference: "...it was "The Rise of the Meritocracy" that made Mr. Young world famous". AllyD (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Young’s book is described as "a far-reaching, much reprinted satire" in The Independent, and as a "1958 bestseller" and a "classic" , both in The Guardian. Note also that its current edition appears in a Classics in Organization and Management Series.  It can be found being discussed in an article by Daniel Bell ( “National Affairs”, 1972), being discussed in a 2015 New Statesman article , and serving as a discussion point for a (paywalled) 2006 article in The Economist: "Young's book was an opening shot in a successful war" . Also in another Economist article this year  but the paywall limit prevented my access to that. Overall I would say WP:NBOOK is met. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Another source: Young's book is also discussed by Christopher Lasch on pages 41-44 of "The Revolt of the Elites". AllyD (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly meets WP:NB#3 with the sources listed above. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I got more sources also via Proquest: all substantial book reviews. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep – I’m sorry as this may come across as harsh. But are we not required to do “Due Diligence” before nominating a piece for Deletion at AFD.  Just a basic Google Scholar search of the book, and not author, shows thousands (10,000+) of cites for the book, as shown here .  More than meets are inclusion criteria.  ShoesssS Talk 18:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No that's understandable, but to be fair on the nominator. All the sources I supplied are paywalled, and Google Scholar is not nearly as well known as it should be. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – No, to a certain degree I understand and that is why I stated;…”This may come across as harsh”. I know many consider me an Inclusionest so I have a tendency to look for reasons to Keep.  However, when you have a book that is cited 10,000+, which can be found on just a simple search, I question the nomination.  Hopefully, no offence taken and another editor (and this editor) may take the time to double check viable secondary – Independent – Reliable sources before nominating. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 19:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As the nominator I used Google (although I do know about Google Scholar). My nomination is based on what is currently in the article rather than what someone might add if they find it (for all the defences so far only one more ref has been added) and it's more the case that "In her obituary of him, Margalit Fox claims Young coined the word meritocracy" rather than simply "Young coined the word meritocracy". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the seven book reviews I note? &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, almost all the time AFD noms do not do what is expected of them in accordance with WP:BEFORE, the problem is that they should have nominated the page for speedy deletion rather than using AFD as it either (a) made no claim to notability or (b) was an unambiguous copyright violation, and yet most of the time BEFORE is invoked in deletion discussions it is presented as a tool with which to smack so-called "deletionists" over the head, and there was even, recently, a discussion about making it explicit that that was its primary purpose, which was shot down by a strong consensus but supported by a lot of self-proclaimed "inclusionists". All this is to say that it's pretty poor form to go around assuming that noms have not done any research; GScholar is a fairly obscure tool (I specifically recall the first time it was introduced to me, in a multimedia translation seminar by Minako O'Hagan, who grinned enthusiastically when she asked the class of fourth-semester undergrads if anyone was familiar with Google Scholar and no hands went up), and while knowing about various tools of Google-fu (quotation marks and the like) does bring up a lot of apparently-usable sources that's no excuse to attack a good-faith AFD nom. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Hello User:Hijiri88, to use your verbiage; “…to be fair” I find personally that 90%+ of all nominations and the nominators for the deletion of articles do due their “Due Diligence” before requesting an article be deleted and I always “Assume Good Faith” for their viewpoint. However, rather than distract from this particular article discussion, with regards to the merit of this piece, to be kept here on Wikipedia or be deleted, I have posted on your talk page a more comprehensive response to the points you raised. Which can be found here User talk:Hijiri88.  ShoesssS Talk 01:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per AllyD, Frayae and ShoesssS. There is more than enough coverage. James500 (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The book is highly notable per the extensive in depth reviews in reliable sources. An increasingly relevant book too. Today's elite are slowly waking up to the dangers of excessive meritocracy. Better and more accessible ladders are insufficient for effective social inclusion policies that facilitate cultural participation for all. True inclusion is also about lowering the bar. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep If our article and this are accurate that this book is the source of the common English word "meritocracy", then it is almost certainly notable. Routledge also apparently calls it a "classic". The article does need serious work, though, as the authors do not seem to be clear on whether it is a book or an "essay" (a word almost never used to describe book-length works). The nom could also be forgiven for having thought, at the time of nomination, that the article was a coatrack discussing the etymology of the word "meritocracy", attributing the coining of the word to Young, but doing so based on a primary source, which was definitely inappropriate. (Thanks due to User:AllyD for having fixed that last problem.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC) (edited 23:45, 13 July 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.