Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intraculturalism


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Intraculturalism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable neologism. Most of the stuff I'm seeing online are mirrors. For the record, until now the article hadn't been edited in 1,112 days, and it only had 20 edits in its history, despite the fact that it has been on Wikipedia since June 2006. I'm honestly not sure if this subject is a thing outside of this article; the article does not cite any sources. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 18:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 18:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 18:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment a book search throws up a number of refs in the context of theatre, so it appears to be a term used in critical discourse in that field. Not sure if it’s really notable or if it’s just a WP:DICDEF. Mccapra (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I did not find any sources for this concept, so this particular concept does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NEO. I did find some sources for the word, but they all seemed to use it to refer to an idea by Indian theater/cultural critic Rustom Bharucha. After wading through a lot of jargon, I found a definition here. Good luck making that understandable. But given that this is a totally different concept, I think we can delete the unsourced thing we have here, rather than struggling to write up an orphan article on this neologism just to put something under this title when fields like this are prone to neologisms, many of which we do not have articles for/are not notable. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as it does not appear to be a notable concept. However, I agree with keeping the article if sources that prove the word's sufficient usage are provided. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete an unsourced dict-def. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:43, 14 August 2019 (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.