Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperghettoization

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 defaulting to Keep. Davewild (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperghettoization

Seems to fail WP:NEO. Hammer1980·^talk 17:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Needs a lot of cleanup, but this is not something WP:MADEUP; there are dozens of Google Books and Google Scholar hits dating back as far as the 1980s. —Caesura ^(t) 17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. JSTOR shows more academic hits (I'd link but the links are dynamic); this page needs cleanup; I might be able to give it some time later today to try and improve it.--CastAStone|^(talk) 20:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm inclined to merge with Racial segregation in the United States or something along those lines. At the very least, the term hyperghettoization seems a stretch when we have no article on ghettoization per se. The Google Scholar hits are 1000x. --Dhartung | Talk 05:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Caesura. I'm surprised; I would've thought for sure that was a clearly deletable article according to WP:NEO. -Verdatum (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the term can be found on Google scholar current text fails to define it and does not explain how it is different to the traditional ghettoization. Without the few essay bits it has practically no encyclopedical contents. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2007 (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.