Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circuit of 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. As withdrawn. No prejudice against a merger discussion, if this is better handled in a parent article on cultural materialism. czar 06:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit of culture[edit]

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

I can find this term mentioned a couple of times, but I can't see the coverage to indicate notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First two hits from GBooks show it defined and discussed, clearly notable. Chris Barker (27 December 2007). Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications. pp. 59–. ISBN 978-1-4462-0018-6., Chris Barker (9 June 2004). The SAGE Dictionary of Cultural Studies. SAGE Publications. pp. 22–. ISBN 978-0-7619-7341-6.. Seriously, anything that has a dedicated entry in SAGE published Dictionary of anything is clearly notable. I'll ask the nominator to withdraw this (ping User:Boleyn). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Google book preview returns plenty of results that discuss the concept: link. Appears to be an important model in cultural studies. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination based on above Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2017 (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.