Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloward–Piven strategy

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. Very poor discussion with no examination of the notability problems, hence not a "keep". Renomination or merging as per S Marshall appear like good ways forward to me. Sandstein 21:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Cloward–Piven strategy

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Cloward-Piven Strategy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Cloward–Piven strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The subject of this article has not been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The secondary sources cited in the article amount to a single newspaper blog piece (Tomasky); a page and a half in a scholarly book (Reisch and Andrews); a single paragraph in a popular book (McWhorter); and a single sentence in another academic book (Weir). By way of contrast, a recent in-depth profile of Frances Fox Piven in the New York Times mentions in passing "attempts of right-wing commentators to tar moderate liberals with her brand of radicalism", but treats the idea of a "Cloward–Piven strategy" as described in this article as a falsehood. The title phrase gets 86 results on Google Scholar, most of which seem to treat it in a similar way, i.e. as an occasional object of right-wing fascination with little basis in reality. At best, this is a historically insignificant strategy that has had little influence and been the subject of little scholarly or journalistic interest in the half-century since its development; at worst, it's a WP:COATRACK that's been used for over a decade to prop up an incoherent right-wing conspiracy theory. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Trim and merge to Guaranteed minimum income#United_States. Although I don't feel we need all of this text, I wouldn't like to lose the sources, and I feel we're looking at a WP:PRESERVE situation here.—S Marshall T/C 18:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• This article needs to remain. I understand some people like to call it "conspiracy theory", because some Pundits/TalkingHeads like to make connections to this strategy but the fact still remains that the strategy did exist and was in fact published in a major publication back in 1966. The two authors were PHD's who educated and influenced young people for over four decades and helped bring about major legislation and political action. So in that context a published work by the couple is relevant. And it's especially relevant since it has been referenced by so many other sources in recent history regardless of the opinion some people have of those sources. I might point out that to this day in 2019, many people still say Wikipedia is not a "reliable" source. So do we want to make that true by simply removing history because we don't like what some people think about? Immto (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Keep Essentially, this. Whether or not one feels that the strategy was a 'incoherent far-right conspiracy theory' is, of course, one's prerogative. Denying the existence of the strategy itself is wholly different. The reality is that Cloward and Piven did in fact evolve and put forward a strategy that was intended to stress the existing social welfare networks in order to drive reforms of their desire. This is not an assertion, it's a fact that is supported by a primary source and was clearly laid out within said source. The article as it currently stands is supported by multiple direct quotations by Cloward and Piven. If you believe that there are countervailing viewpoints, those should be properly sourced and addressed in the Reception and Criticism section. Arkanor (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with notability (our standard for determining whether a given topic ought to be the subject of a Wikipedia article), though? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, you could refer to the previous discussion from 11 years ago, the last time that someone tried to ram through a deletion of this article. Plenty of sources from within both the current article and that discussion are sufficient in my mind to establish notability. On a slightly different note I took the liberty of adding bullets to break up comments and bold text to the start of all initial replies to more clearly illustrate people's votes. Arkanor (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep - this article needs improvements, but i dont see a clear case for deletion. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I have to agree with Arms & Hearts that there has been sufficient discussion over the decades to make this notable.WidenerStacks (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2019 (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.