Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overclass

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overclass

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not widely used enough to warrant an article. Basically, this is just a neologism for "upper class" or "elite" (which we already have articles for). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and until we can write more than a brief definition here, we should remove the article by redirecting it to Upper class. Mesoderm (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a journal article dedicated to this topic. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both what should be a dictionary definition and not commonly used. In response to the comment, it should be noted that Russian (and Soviet) journals frequently do not have the same definition of political systems as standard English, so the article would not be a WP:RS even if the journal would normally be considered one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom.. Not sure if synonymous with Upper class or Bourgeoisie. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article is more than a dicdef, but a sociological, economic and political topic which has gotten substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources, besides the writing of Lind, satisfying WP:N. Google Book Search shows [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] , and [25]. It also has mass market news coverage, as in a cover story in Newsweek (which itself received coverage). and Business Week. It also receives significant coverage in the bestselling "A history of the American People" by Paul Johnson. Edison (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Edison. There is clearly enough material out there to expand the article.--Stvfetterly (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.