Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social evil

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 delete. Any redirect is an editorial matter. Sandstein 17:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social evil

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

Lacks references, and is basically a dictionary definition, while Wikipedia is not a dictionary. and is an almost unavoidably subjective one, as would be almost any additional content one would write for this generic term. The inclusion of particular items in the See Also list is likewise subjective. School leaving age involves a social evil? Gay rights: some people will call homosexuality a social evil, others will call homophobia one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this is original research by synthesis and of very little use to anyone since, as the nominator points out, the perception of "evil" is subjective even if reliable sources are found; hence every "evil" and its polar opposite would be presented. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Social evil is a proper term, not a subjective topic. I believe contributors can expand the article over time.
- I really don't think so. Once the term has been defined, if it can even be defined both neutrally and satisfactorily, all I think you can do is list examples or discuss specific examples. But discussions of specific examples belong in the articles on those examples; I don't see how you can have a generic discussion of social evils as a general class. And, again, the selection of examples is highly subjective. Even when people are in agreement about whether something is bad, what determines that it's a social evil? Is poverty a social evil? It's a social misfortune and a social problem, but I wouldn't apply the term "social evil" to it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and salt. This is a blatant example of WP:SOAP that is backed up by that well-known British bunch of soapboxers, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Evil Nearly every social event may be seen by some group in society as a social evil, even childbirth: beyond 2.1 per couple is a social evil to strict malthusians, no matter how much the children are loved. what can be included in social evil is inherently ambivalent, so all this could be is a dictionary definition, which WP is not. it is a term used commonly, but that doesnt mean it gets an encyclopedia entry. Only if a particular, well established group used this phrase consistently, and it became a well used meme, even if used in a biased or political manner, and this use was debated among others not in the group, and the whole discussion was mentioned in third party sources, then we have an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2009 (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.