Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School-to-prison pipeline

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School-to-prison pipeline[edit]

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

The article is overly promotional and biased with no encyclopaedic content. It is based on the opinions of others. The bias starts right at the lead section. And the supporting paragraph is very short and almost absent. The article has no fundamental encyclopaedic components such as the history section or actors, rather, it is based on a student's point of view. This article is like a discussion essay that talks about the article in a different way that an encyclopaedia does. The article rarely talks about the topic in general as well. The article was WP:PROD recently, so I am writing this deletion discussion to cope with this.

If the deletion discussion fails, I would recommend a complete rewrite. DSCrowned^(talk) 08:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively, I'll say delete. Possibly an policy-compliant article could be written, but this isn't it. The first and most significant problem is original research. Many of the sources have only a tangential/passing reference to the subject of the article without discussing it in detail (e.g. [1] [2]). Several others are primary sources (e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6]). In its current form, this article is a creative, not a neutral, well-referenced, encyclopaedic article. If some secondary source that discuss the phrase extensively can be found, the article could be kept. I haven't been able to find them. Relentlessly (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually a very good article, for the editorial page of a newspaper but not for an encyclopedia. Written to promote policy so violates WP:NPV Borock (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a long-standing article that has existed since 2011, and the subject is certainly notable (judging from a news search and a book search). That being said, it does need some work to comply with NPOV policies, and there appears to be myriad academic sources available that can be added to the article as it is rewritten over time. Fix it, don't just completely remove it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recognized, widely-discussed modern social issue, with no shortage of scholarly articles nor books from reliable publishers. The current article needs a lot of work, but this isn't blow-up-and-start-over bad. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is quite notable as there are several books about it including:

The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Structuring Legal Reform
Disrupting the School-to-prison Pipeline
From Education to Incarceration: Dismantling the School-To-Prison Pipeline
Transforming the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Lessons from the Classroom
Deconstructing the School-to-Prison Pipeline
Lockdown High: When the Schoolhouse Becomes a Jailhouse
Right to Be Hostile: Schools, Prisons, and the Making of Public Enemies
Education as Enforcement: The Militarization and Corporatization of Schools

We should learn a lesson from such critiques of the zero-tolerance approach. Please see our editing policy and note that AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. S-to-P Pipeline is a notable topic. The article should be improved, but shouldn't be deleted. IjonTichy (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources to satisfy at least the GNG. POV is solid grounds for a rewrite and maybe even some cutting of text/sources, but not deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the most notable and controversial topics in criminology and juvenile justice today. Almost every current college CJ textbook has a section on the topic; literally thousands of scholarly articles have been written on the topic in recent years. Please read WP:BEFORE. This article is not so bad that it needs blowing up; ordinary editing will work. We are not going to remove controversial topics. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gzuufy (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 10 March 2015 (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.