Talk:social class

"social class" has been deleted by Amgine on 3 September 2009 as being a sum-of-parts. But I don't see how social class is a sum-of-parts. --Dan Polansky 13:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What was deleted was a badly formatted entry with a bad definition.
 * It is just the edit summary that seems wrong.
 * It's the kind of term that I would check at OneLook before even challenging. It is in one or two general dictionaries and a few specialized ones there. We should make sure that our definition is more than SoP, though. DCDuring TALK 13:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've given it a try with "A class of people, based on social power or wealth." I am unsure how accurate this is, though. I assume that it is the characteristics that are used to define the class that make the term non-sum-of-parts; the class of people who have just broken a vase and have black hair is not a social class, I hope. --Dan Polansky 13:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * keep: specialized context. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also keep, idiomatic otherwise it would just be a class which is social, which is not what the article says. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I don't think this was ever up for deletion! It was speedy deleted then recreated with a serious definition, and then listed here anyway. It was never tagged, and the person that listed it here wanted to keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)