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. — Cirt (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common people[edit]

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

Source less SYNTH. This concept isn't a sociological term or category: as such what we have is a dicdef, as not being a term it isn't explored in any scholarly literature at depth (compare and contrast to the commons), it involves major factual errors (positing that the contemporary middle classes arose directly out of the peasantry. The technical content properly belongs at peasantry, or history of the european peasantry, lumpenproletariat, artisan, proletariat, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources added since 20 June have as their specific object "Common people" or "commoners", they're passing references, not scholarly attention. The article's subject fails notability criteria due to lack of sourcing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not require sources to have the article's topic as their specific subject - significant coverage is sufficient. However, if you put "Common people" or "commoners" into google books you get tens of thousands of results, many of which seem to be scholarly works entirely about this massively notable topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unsourced. Also, all of the information is either outright factually incorrectly or slightly factually correct.Curb Chain (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how the concept of "the common people" or "a common person" could not be a notable topic that a person might want to learn more about through an encyclopedia article. The article should be a lot better, as others have said, but deleting it will not make that happen. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that common people are most often contrasted with the nobility, not discussed in the context of our modern concern with economics.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see The common people: a history from the Norman Conquest to the present for a respectable book-length treatment of the topic. The article should be kept for further development in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A sole text supporting at most "The history of common people in the United Kingdom" doesn't indicate that this is a universal scholarly term rather than a descriptive phrase. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also just a dictionary definition as it now stands. If you want to improve the article, by all means do so, but it is unsourced, and as the original nominator said, it is WP:SYN and WP:OR.Curb Chain (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: our notability guidelines weren't really created for situations like this — they're more meant for biographies, companies, etc., not for entities that have existed since the beginning of society. The article isn't so bad that it's unsalvageable, so we shouldn't trash it. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colleges usually teach a course called Western Civilization which includes this information. Class systems are common throughout history in many places. I think the article should be nammed commoners though, that how they are referred to. Never heard anyone refer to them as "common people". Google book results for "commoner" AND "Western Civilization" gets over a thousand results. [1] If I could remember the name of my old college textbook, I'd look that up. Dream Focus 06:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to keep the article, *if there was at least one source*Curb Chain (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or turn into a disambiguation page. A vague and amorphous term that can mean many different things in different contexts, for which there are many, more specific, synonyms or (for definitions by exclusion) antonyms (the OED for instance offers one definition as 'not a peer'). Attempting to pull them all into one article would likely result in WP:IINFO, WP:synthesis and the like. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Notable topic. It is historically more "common" to call the "common people" "commoners". Ergo, this article should be renamed. I added a ref. and attempted to put it in a proper sociological context with the opening sentence. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. J04n(talk page) 14:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but there are issues to be addressed.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Perhaps this doesnt hold in the continental traditions, but this is EN Wiki and in the anglophone world this is a hugely noteable concept, required for even a schoolboy understanding of economic history, social history, sociology and cultural studies. I have some books and God willing will soon improve the article, but just getting a vote in as this AfD seems to be due for closure. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a dictionary, and there is no general concept discussed in the article. The class described in the article is actually called "commoners", as in "House of Commons". TFD (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as current article is way too much fleshed out to be labelled and dismissed as a "dictionary definition". Collect (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as the article is now 937 words, and has 9 inline citations and other references. More can be done, but article is now good enough to be kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe Common people is an important concept for understanding the social layout in history. More clarifications need to be made, but the current article is a good foundation.--CHASEMOON (talk) 16:07, 30 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.