Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination)[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination)

Delete - I'm nominating this draft as it hasn't seen significant changes in the past 8 months, and due to its nature academic sources are few and far between and are often flawed either constituting WP:OR or being cribbed from sources that constitute WP:OR. It is in this regard a non-notable and informal term with very little solid academia behind it. Compounding these factors the previous page in name space was SALTED by a consensus of admins. Many votes in the previous deletion discussion (for the draft) pointed towards a wait-and-see approach, as no significant change has come in 8 months of waiting, I believe deletion is now in order. --Jobrot (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Mainspace - Encyclopedic treatment of an encyclopedic topic, as nearly as I can tell, perhaps with a few flaws correctable through the normal editing process. One of the main critics of consideration of this topic in any form has been banned off En-WP; let's try it again. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this an encyclopedic topic? The kook version of the term (which is the most predominant usage today) - is based on The Frankfurt School which its self is (as is mentioned multiple times on that page) an INFORMAL term ("The Frankfurt School" was a post-hoc classification of an "associated" group of thinkers who were never united in their work) so tell me how an informal term based on an informal term constitutes an "encyclopedic topic". In terms of academic treatment of it, it's a dead term that only had a glancing shot to begin with. --Jobrot (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it already has a place in mainspace, and due to its informal and limited nature, it's not worthy of another: Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory. --Jobrot (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could care less about the past MfD or the salting, my original reasoning for it being kept was "future potential". Seeing however that as pointed out by the nom that no significant changes have happened in the past 8 months to remedy any issues I do not see this as needed. While I understand there is WP:NOTDEADLINE, there is also copy/paste to Microsoft Word. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable as entire books are written about it such as Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology. The fact that it's a political football here is not an adequate reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cite has this written as its Google Books description "A thorough examination and analysis of the tensions between political sociology and the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s is presented in this volume. In order to create a strikingly original synthesis, Weiner considers the work of theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement" - this is a fine example of the term being INFORMAL in nature, as you can see it's talking about "culturally oriented Marxism" (far from a solid definition or unified movement) and as the description its self notes, it includes theorists whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism "movement" (that no one declares themselves a part of). I'm sure you can appreciate the conflict of terms here (speaking of "culturally oriented Marxism" then including theorists who "fall ideologically outside" that spectrum)... so yes, an informal and ill-defined term, lacking sources to the contrary, and rarefied in academic usage (hence this particular source being 35 years old and out of print). The draft has not resolved such contradictions and most likely NEVER WILL as it is currently an informal (unresolved) term that has fallen out of favour with academics. Apart from that no one is working on the draft. It has innate contradictions like this, and only takes up space (and most likely will indefinitely if not deleted). --Jobrot (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Space is not a problem because it is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content". In any case, deletion does not free up space; it merely makes the page visible only to administrators. Restricting access to the draft in this way would be disruptive. Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a point. I still think keeping this draft is useless to the point of being a hindrance - it doesn't even make a strong delineation between the original academic meaning as fleeting as it was (which was more of "Cultural Marxism" as an early flavour of Cultural Analysis) and the modern conspiratorial meaning (which supposes "Cultural Marxism" as a strong stalinistic force within culture). It doesn't even delineate the known time period or list The Birmingham School as the succeeding The Frankfurt School. It doesn't even couch the term as being internal to Sociology and Cultural Studies (ie. not an attempt at describing some external political movement). Anything that ignores and demonizes academia and the freedom to analyze our own culture is no friend of mine, and I don't think Wikipedia should be legitimating it - let alone pretending as though one (the informal and rarefied academic term) is the background for the other (the conspiracy). Honestly I think starting from complete scratch would be better than the dregs of salt the current draft has, and has had static for the past 8 months. --Jobrot (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jobrot's talk of "starting from scratch" seems disingenuous as there's an extensive draft for the same topic in his sandbox. He seems to work on little else but this topic and so appears to be a single purpose account trying to own the topic by deleting rival drafts. Andrew D. (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst yes, I have written and researched on this topic (as well as The Birmingham School) extensively, I'm not out to "own" anything. In fact, of the current section, I've only written a single line, and anyone looking at the talk page for the Frankfurt School can easily see that all I've done there is to make sure edits follow policy. It's been a controversial topic that's attracted a lot of outside attention from IPs and new users (several users have been banned for editing against policy). I suggest we stick to discussing the topic at hand rather than each other. --Jobrot (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This page is mostly a mess of unrelated things strung together as a form of WP:OR, and the total absence of any improvements over the past eight months (or, for that matter, in the lengthy period of high-profile attention leading up to the article's original deletion) gives clear indication that improving it to the point where it would be useful is not possible. --Aquillion (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or go to WP:DRV to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination). The clarity of the consensus of the AfD precludes a "Move to Mainspace" option. A recent heavy going well-participated AfD closed by a panel of three administrators should not be able to be side-stepped by going through DraftSpace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Although this may need some work, this topic passes WP:GNG (just look at the sources cited in this article). Wikipedia policy specifically states that if an article can be improved, this should be favored over deletion (see WP:ATD). Although several editors note issues with WP:OR, that alone is not sufficient grounds for deletion when notability has been established by reliable sources (see WP:DEL-REASON). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this case adequately meets a number of reasons for deletion as following:

WP:DEL1 Assuming the current draft made it to mainspace, it would immediately meet G4 of speedy deletion WP:CSD.
WP:DEL5 It's a content fork, WP:FORK - as we already have numerous pages that cover Cultural Studies and the different schools of thought there in (including The Frankfurt School and The Chicago School no The Birmingham School page for some reason).
WP:DEL7 In my opinion there are no reliable WP:V sources on this subject. There is a self-published essay by an academic, there is the 1973 book that originated the term as a criticism of Marxists, written by a 1960s left/Marxist/radical, and there are a few rather confused books who all claim to be exploring the category for the very first time.. and of course, there's the multitude of far-right websites. None of these sources are particularly good or exempt from WP:OR, in fact more than a few of them are specifically WP:OR - and state as much.
WP:DEL8 It lacks notability WP:N, not just due to the WP:V issues above, but also because no one from "the movement" recognizes it, it's a movement with no one in it, and the people consistently accused are already covered on The Frankfurt School page or as self-described Critical Theorists (many of whom are divorced from Marxism all together).
WP:DEL11 Although it's not a category, it does present a risk of over-categorization - the article risks becoming a WP:COATRACK due to the number of groups and sub-movements being accused (all part of the "PC thug" network hated by most conservatives)... and as mentioned above, the topic already fits in under exiting pages (not everything needs it's own page, especially a subject with such little academic usage).
...and finally WP:DEL14 as the term has always been informal, meaning anything from Marxists who indulge in parts of capitalist culture, to cultures within Marxist societies, to Russian war propaganda. A culture of Marxism, Cultural marxism, Cultural Marxism - all have slightly different meanings (as this section of the German wikipedia points out). For these reasons it's too loose a term to be encyclopedic. That's why no one's certain what it is, because it is so many things to so many groups - academics included - as The Frankfurt School page notes: "Which "theorists" to include in what is now called the "Frankfurt School" may vary among different scholars" - so it's worse than an informal term, it's an informal term built on a pre-existing informal grouping/term (The Frankfurt School).

Anyways, I hope you see that I have some points here. --Jobrot (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jobrot, I will admit that WP:DEL1 is compelling, and in light of the prior deletion discussion, I feel obligated to change my vote to delete. I was also unaware of the fact that there is coverage of this topic at the article for the Frankfurt School. Nevertheless, I disagree with your arguments that this topic is not notable. Many critical theorists and continental philosophers discuss the notion "cultural marxism," even if it is just to shoot it down. In any event, I appreciate your willingness to take the time to explain your perspective on this. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and consideration. --Jobrot (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notecardforfree WP:DEL1 is inapplicable because G4 explicitly excludes "content moved to user space or converted to a Draft" and that's exactly what we have here. Note also that the nominator has a draft of his own for the exact same topic and so proposing that a rival draft be deleted is obviously improper per WP:SAUCE and WP:GAME. Andrew D. (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said to you already - that's not a draft. That's just my personal notes and research on the subject. I have no intention of making it into a draft. Also, I'm aware G4 doesn't apply to drafts (hence the assumption "ASSUMING the current draft made it to mainspace"... none of which changes the fact that there's already a space for this topic - and that most in the AfD said; if no changes come (which they haven't), they'd vote to delete the draft. --Jobrot (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note here for the record, that I DID have a draft [1] back when I was new to Wikipedia, but it likewise hasn't been updated for the past 8 months or more. In a show of WP:GOODFAITH I've put in a request for it too to be deleted under WP:DEL1 (as WP:G7 of WP:CSD). I can assure you, I have no plans to convert what's written in my sandbox into a draft, and it was only written to organize my thoughts in lieu of the main AfD on this subject. Hence WP:GAME need not apply, WP:GANDER however most certainly does apply. And a speedy deletion, and hence closure of this overly-politicized topic on Wikipedia would be appreciated. --Jobrot (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete or go to DRV(if not too late). The article has been deleted and salted, the Draft hasn't been worked on in over 8 months. Editors stating their 'Keep' !votes on whether this should be an article or not are mistaken on their policy arguments. This page was deleted already, the Draft should now follow. It's a mess of OR and SYNTH based on a conspiracy theory. All of which we already have articles on. Dave Dial (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and especially SmokyJoe. a deletion discussion was held, and the article was deleted. this page was restored so that people who opposed deletion could work on it and build a new article that met wikipolicy. these people failed to do that. so many months later, with no progress. the page should be deleted. anyway, the i don't think it was possible to build a new article. i voted keep in the old discussion but is see now that that was wrong. if a sourced article that meets wikipolicy cannot be made as we see here then there is no reason to keep this any longer. wikipedia doesn't need to serve as a battleground for western culture wars. ~ ip user 159.203.16.4 (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.