Deletion of White privilege (sociology)

Comment: Note to admin: This should be closed under . It's unfortunate that articles on controversial topics arouse such ire and misunderstanding, but there is just no question that this is a prominent, notable, influential academic topic. One editor has reiterated his issues multiple times, but that is not enough to make a fruitful AFD discussion.  He has added no new points that have not been made and refuted on the talk page of the article in question. (And I note that he http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWhite_privilege_%28sociology%29&diff=165269959&oldid=165264684 added a notaballot template to this article without explaining why he would think that this *was* a ballot. It seems to me that a lot of people are simply expressing their honest confusion that such a notable topic would have to undergo this process
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: nobody has attacked the |notability of this article. even the critics agree that this article should be here so that's not the dispute. it sounds like the pro-deletion camp is saying that the only way to improve this article is to start over. this doesn't fit with what ive seen over the past year. over time the opinion piece was scrapped, the  fight stopped, the article got some proper footnotes, and there were only a few uncited facts left. it's still not perfect. citing everything wouldn't make it perfect. but deleting it ain't gonna fix it. one attack on this article is that the sources aren’t |neutral or |reliable. the most questionable stuff seems to be the oldest. flag that or edit that if you gotta. but stats from universities, newspapers, and government are solid. i agree that some parts only quote stats without conclusions, and so there’s some  and  going on. but it doesn't take much for somebody to find a book that takes those stats and explains them using white privilege. and if the stats lead to a different conclusion, then somebody should put that other conclusion in the criticism. isn't that gonna work better than killing this article? the last criticism is that anyone who says “white privilege exists” has a POV and so the article will always violate . but we can’t slash every concept that a few people say doesn’t exist. a study from the “panel on climate change” isn’t too biased for wikipedia just because they want to show that the climate is changing. if the science is there you can’t deny it. critics can only offer new data or new conclusions. that’s why we got articles on global warming and the bell curve, with criticism for both...  oh, i guess I see just one more criticism... supposedly everybody voting “keep” is part of a vast conspiracy! when the debate gets to that level then you know it’s time to give it up
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NPOV||WP:SYN||WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:notability||WP:reliable)

Comment: An OR-ladden POV-pushing mess. Violations of  and  abound
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNT||WP:RS)

Comment: While  is a problem as written, it's a fixable problem. Moreover, much text refers to the use of WP as a sociological and historical concept, notably by Cheryl Harris, George Lipsitz, Noel Ignatiev, Peggy McIntosh, the American Mosaic Project, and Karen Brodkin. They, of course, are perfectly free to advance a POV which should be described here, with due balance for opposing POVs. Despite the presence of synthetic material, little of it goes beyond the arguments put forward by the cited authors (and the uncited W.E.B. DuBois, whose concept of "the wages of whiteness" is formative for the later White Privilege). So the real problem is appending the attribution above to POV social scientists above the supporting data which they themselves have synthesized at length
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNT)