Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Co-culture


 * 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. I'd suggest that a merge discussion is started on the article's talk page. &mdash;SW&mdash; verbalize 15:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Co-culture

 * – ( View AfD View log )

NEO at this stage. I see lots of uses for the word, but in biology, not sociology. Single source. At this stage, it appears to only be this one author using the term, not an accepted term. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Cloudz 679 08:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete; this is neologistic "political correctness" blather from one overly-sensitive and over-analyzing author. No evidence of notability/currency. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  03:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - While the article's topical focus is about sociological matters, the term is also used in other contexts. See:
 * Co-culture system potential of sea cucumber and sea urchin assessed from Republic of the Philippines: Department of Agriculture. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Merge per Angrysockhop below - Google Scholar returns about 153,000 results for the term, showing that the term is not a neologism and WP:GNG is satisfied. Being a stub has never been a reason for deletion; if you don't like it being a single source and focused on a sub-topic then expand it, don't delete it. This is the Wiki way. Diego (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There are entire books written about this stuff such as Constructing co-cultural theory. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Not properly transcluded. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with Subculture. Co-culture is a well-established term used in academic sources since at least 1998. However, I can't see the value in having co-culture as a separate article when it seems to be an alternate viewpoint on the already-established concept of subcultures, rather than a separate concept. Angrysockhop  ( talk to me ) 06:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE: I found 217 sources at Google scholar. There's lots of good sources in there. The 1980s is not so new in sociology.  I've heard the term being bandied about in legitmate fora. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with Subculture. Term exists, Bearian's searches provide evidence, but the denotation of the term doesn't differ from "subculture", the two describe identical or nearly identical ideas, and are best represented by a single article rather than mutliple articles as a result.  The combined article can describe (based on such sources) the appropriate differences in connotation, and as a result, actually provide a more valuable result to readers searching for one term or the other.    --joe deckertalk to me 06:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with Subculture. - Frankie1969 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with a merge per Joe decker and Frankie1969. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2012 (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.