Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural infiltration

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. POW! J04n(talk page) 01:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural infiltration

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

Poorly sourced WP:OR screed, like the rest of this sockmaster's creations. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. is this a personal essay masking as a Wikipedia article? Regardless, the question of an AfD is "Is the subject of the article notable"? The subject has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, and this might be considered significant coverage. Given that the subject has received coverage, but the content is questionable, I say we should go with WP:TNT. A fresh start might do this subject some good if someone (or a group of people) want to work on this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is badly written, but it seems to be notable. Starting over, as Sarek suggests, is an option. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's basically my thought. Even if the topic is notable, there's nothing worth saving here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is POV as it stands but it's obviously a concept that does exist and Wikipedia deserves to have a good page on it. Scrap everything that fails to mark individual POVs as such. Shii (tock) 04:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as propaganda, the extreme form of promotionalism. We already have an article on this, cultural hegemony. Possibly a redirect should be made from this term--I think it is too closely related to make a separate article. Even if we did, the existing content is too biased to be usable, and should be removed from the history. The alternative would be to save section 1, discarding the introduction and sections 2 & 3. ( note the article link from Gramsci is not to our article, but to an outside p with a much inferior biography. And the ref RCLC found for this term is about the US attempt at cultural infiltration of the Soviet Union, a topic that is nowhere mentioned in the article. If we do have an article under this term, it should be limited to Gramsci's concept & later discussion of it. Communist attempts to affect the culture of the US, possibly based to some extent on Gramsci, US attempt to affect the USSR, possible Islamist attempts to affect the culture of the US, and many other examples throughout history, are all best discussed separately. It's not as if nobody would have thought of the idea without Gramsci. It goes back at least as far as the initial Christian attempts to convert the pagans. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the inappropriate external links from the article, so "Antoni Gramsci" now links to his Wikipedia article. Dricherby (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the problems with the article are essentially content issues, the article contains huge amounts of Islamophobic propaganda and it would be so hard to write an NPOV article starting here that WP:TNT seems to be the best option. Dricherby (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural hegemony, WP:ESSAY on existing topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2013 (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.