Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egalitarian mortality

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. The article was expanded during the discussion, so the earlier "delete" opinions do not necessarily inform consensus, whereas the editors who commented subsequent to the expansion agree that the article should be kept. Sandstein 05:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egalitarian mortality

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

"Egalitarian mortality" seems to be WP:OR by the article creator, hanging the topic on a single article that studied a limited population. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article discusses a situation in which women do not outlive men and men do not outlive women. This has been called egalitarian mortality. More can follow. It is a start not a final product. And it is more than a stub. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Article topic is not found in any reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not a topic. Article creator is welcome to merge any useful content to Life expectancy on his own initiative. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.

Delete, well written original research. The article moves from mortality tables to the philosophy of egalitarianism and back again. No objection to a selective merge into life expectancy that points out that the expected pattern does not hold everywhere. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

continuing my 'Keep' vote The references in the article demonstrate the page is neither 'Original research' nor a 'Synthesis' banned by Wikipedia, and that it is a topic found in reliable sources. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no. This reference discusses inequality in mortality. No source discusses egalitarian mortality; a phrase you apparently made up. The original mentions, briefly, "egalitarian mortality distribution" as a way to discuss equality in mortality. Other sources at Google Scholar mention equality or egalitarianism in mortality as a part of discussions of life expectancy. There is no topic of "egalitarian mortality" taken by itself. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - continuing my 'Keep' vote Actually YES try using "egalitarian mortality" on Google Scholar. There are also others that discuss "quasi-egalitarian mortality". And, again NO it is not 'Original research' or 'Synthesis' as these references demonstrate. By the way, thank you for at least trying the Google Scholar search. The last reference on that search uses the phrase, "in fact, a number of studies show more gender-egalitarian mortality among the poor." So again NO to your conclusions. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But these scholarly papers are discussing life expectancy and its variables. Sometimes life expectancy is equal between sample populations, sometimes it is not. There is no separate topic reserved for the case where life expectancy is equal.
      By the way, I'm surprised you didn't mention Logan's Run, a famous science fiction book in which mortality is forced to be the same for each individual in an over-populated world. Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the light-hearted humor. I've added another section to the page dealing with what the author refers to as an 'egalitarian mortality regime'. Quite interesting. Check it out. Yes, they are discussing Life expectancy and are using the term 'egalitarian mortality' in at least two different contexts: a distribution (probably a statistical distribution to represent an 'egalitarian mortality' which is an economics term) and a point or extent of equality in mortality. Both of these are now on the page. Merging the page into the Life expectancy page; however, would dilute the impact and importance of the fact that circumstances, not random ones, produce equality in mortality and hopefully lengthy life insights. Both 'egalitarian mortality' situations described on the page are not about expectancy but are from reality. This is a subtle but important difference. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

continuing my 'Keep' vote Several points have been stated above by the 'Delete's that my recent additions to the page should demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt are not the case; i.e., some authors call 'egalitarian mortality' what others call 'mortality equality' so the page is not original research. Further, the number of references using either phrase to refer to the same or very similar phenomena is at least four. The terms are found in reliable sources, and YES it is a topic. There are some additional forms of these that I will include. But, this should suffice to allow an administrator to close this discussion with a 'Keep'. A title of 'Mortality equality' may be more aesthetically pleasing, but for now 'Egalitarian mortality' seems okay. Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the page's creation on 15 May 2011, four editors have contributed. Marshallsumter (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh heh... Do you mean this tiny spelling correction, this trivial and incorrect change of especially to specially, followed by this reversion? The only editor who has added actual content has been yourself, and it is all about a minor aspect of life expectancy, not notable in itself. Delete. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - At least eight authors have discussed Egalitarian mortality or its equivalent Mortality equality that meets Wikipedia's Notability criteria. You might want to check 'Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines' rather than resorting to 'Deletion' first. Oh, contributions are contributions. I didn't find you there or the editor User:SarekOfVulcan who put the article up for deletion first before following the usual guidelines. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC) The other 'Delete'rs are not on the 'View history' page either. Marshallsumter (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fully abundant academic sources. The objections seem more to be in the nature of content disputes--or--even more, arguments over the validity of the concept--and such arguments have no place in WikipediaWe go by the sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG: lots of good potential sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2011 (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.