Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural analysis

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. There is a consensus that the topic is likely notable, but that the article as written has major problems. In addition to the current verifiability tag, I plan to add a tag reflecting the consensus of this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Flunks all WP:GNG criteria.

This is a real thing that people do, but the evidence that it has any generally recognized social or institutional meaning is not established by the article. (The best evidence to the contrary is currently confined to the external links. Readers, however, should not be expected to synthesize primary sources.)

If you know of sources that establish notability, please share this on the talk page even if you don't have the time to integrate them into the article.

Thanks! Patrick (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per books on the subject: The Practice of Cultural Analysis, Cross-Cultural Analysis, and Cultural Analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the book coverage shown above. If the current article content flunks all WP:GNG criteria, that can be fixed per WP:Deletion is not cleanup, but not a valid reason for deletion. Left guide (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nom: Thanks @Shellwood for finding those sources. Two of them, though, look like works of sociology, and one of them looks like a cultural studies anthology. Maybe, instead of deletion, I should have proposed a merge into Culture, where various disciplinary approaches are treated in different sections in a way that I would expect to be much more useful to readers. (An analogy: bread making is a topic on which there is a large literature, but the page is just a redirect to Bread.)

So, in response to Conyo14, my objection is not that we simply haven't taken the time to provide good references, but that the topic itself is not encyclopedic, merely a descriptive phrase for a variety of activities more properly treated under other headings.

Does this make sense? If the nomination is misguided, I will withdraw it. --Patrick (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're arguing for WP:NOTDICTIONARY, you may still continue with the nomination. However, as cultural analysis appears to be an educational resource via the books I've given, I argue the article's structure could be rewritten to reflect that. So, with that said, your original nom is confusing in its current state as I have provided sources that proves it passes WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose (1) of WP:NOTDICTIONARY might apply. More relevant, though, is probably WP:COMMONNAME. The first part of the article is about cultural anthropology and the sociology of culture, which sometimes overlap. The second part describes cultural studies, which sometimes includes findings from the former disciplines, but is generally more interested in the interpretation of texts.

If there is some context in which these research areas are regularly lumped together under the heading of "cultural analysis", evidence of this would entirely allay my concern. If not, there's at least a case to be made that the article itself is WP:SYNTH.

Thanks for your attention to this nomination. Patrick (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've gleaned, there is a huge overlap with "cultural studies" (unfortunately, that article is also a mess, making any merge/integration complicated). TucanHolmes (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article appears to have been created by a sociologist here to advertise what would normally by considered a work in the humanistic interdisciplinary field of cultural studies, Girl Heroes.

I don't know what there even is to merge—although I certainly don't oppose it if someone else sees something. Right now the only source for the article is a promotional piece from a university website. It probably passes as an RS based on the CV of the author, but it's not a great look. Patrick (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources provided. TNT may be merited though. Andre🚐 03:01, 13 December 2024 (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.