Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unreferenced book reviews. No references in > five years. No evidence of notability in the article nor clear from google searches. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I explained last time, it is in print and widely read. If it lacks Wiki links that is a defictiency in Wiki.  --GwydionM (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. Nice to see people still fear the truths he expressed and would like to write him out of history. --GwydionM (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Current article is uncited, has neutrality problems, and needs to be cleaned up, but the subject has received significant coverage by secondary sources: Law in the Domains of Culture published by University of Michigan Press, Sex Before the Sexual Revolution by Cambridge University Press, Cultural Materialism: On Raymond Williams published by University of Minnesota Press, Beyond Methods by Yale University Press, New Historicism and Cultural Materialism by Macmillan Publishers. The second book refers to it as a "classic text" on the subject. More than adequately meets the general notability criteria.-- xanchester  (t)  19:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that Google Scholar lists over 6,000 citations to this book. If that doesn't pass our notability guideline for books then there is something wrong with the guideline, not with the book's suitability as a topic for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:58, 28 October 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.