The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
"social class" has been deleted by Amgine on 3 September 2009 as being a sum-of-parts. But I don't see how social class is a sum-of-parts. --Dan Polansky 13:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- What was deleted was a badly formatted entry with a bad definition.
- It is just the edit summary that seems wrong.
- It's the kind of term that I would check at OneLook before even challenging. It is in one or two general dictionaries and a few specialized ones there. We should make sure that our definition is more than SoP, though. DCDuring TALK 13:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. I've given it a try with "A class of people, based on social power or wealth." I am unsure how accurate this is, though. I assume that it is the characteristics that are used to define the class that make the term non-sum-of-parts; the class of people who have just broken a vase and have black hair is not a social class, I hope. --Dan Polansky 13:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- keep: specialized context. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also keep, idiomatic otherwise it would just be a class which is social, which is not what the article says. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW I don't think this was ever up for deletion! It was speedy deleted then recreated with a serious definition, and then listed here anyway. It was never tagged, and the person that listed it here wanted to keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)