- 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ask culture vs. guess culture ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not well established as a concept in sociology or anthropology to be included in an encyclopedia. Gccwang ( talk) 23:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - like subconscious, we have tended to keep lots of popular culture topics that have articles, even if the subject might not be recognized, or may even be a fringe theory. Bearian ( talk) 17:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I certainly wasn't expecting to vote this way, but the sources look legit. I agree with Bearian. We don't really have much choice in the matter. Fringe nonsense, pop psychology, and web wisdom are all quite acceptable, as long as they're sourced. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 09:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not convinced by the references in the article. The Eichler and Drum sources are explicitly derivative of the Burkeman column in The Guardian so shouldn't be considered separate sources, so we are left with one personal column, not an editorially fact-checked article, in a newspaper. Unless we can can come up with some better sourcing than this I don't see how we can sustain an encyclopedia article on this topic. To compare this to the ultra-notable " subconscious" is simply ridiculous. 82.9.185.151 ( talk) 18:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Looking at the sources, this is minor. We'd want considerably more than the Guardian for any article in science or social science--their judgement in these areas is unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per DGG. I agree. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 17:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- 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.