Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural nationalism

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Cultural nationalism

Cultural nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article has (possibly irreconcilable) verifiability and notability problems. The text is largely unsourced and it isn’t at all clear what it’s even supposed to be talking about. I have tagged in the past, but it appears the literature on a phenomenon known as “cultural nationalism” is incredibly vague in what it’s even attempting to define. John Hutchinson appears to be one of the only scholars to engage the term in and of itself (and Kai Nielsen), but does one (or two) scholars’ conceptualisations really meet our notability criteria? My feeling is what he has to say can go in Nationalism. Yr Enw (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Yr Enw (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would like to see this article remain and be improved. It can be a helpful addition to the article in the German-language Wikipedia because the term Kulturnation is an important and well-documented historical concept and is still used and discussed today in Germany.--Baekemm (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That raises an interesting point as to whether article translations can (sometimes) constitute different phenomenons? I’m not saying that’s an argument for or against deletion of this one, but a sidepoint Yr Enw (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is underdeveloped, but a quick search shows 48,000 books which use the term. Many of the books use the term as part of chapter titles ie. in-depth. We are only waiting for someone to improve the article. Based on the very wide usage, the term is notable. It may have differing POVs about its meaning, but multiple POVs is how Wikipedia works. Just quickly browsing those sources here is one that says

Moving beyond the cultural nationalist period has not been easy, and despite the many civil rights glories associated with the 1960s and 1970s, the fact that a new cultural logic has slowly made its way into our daily lives makes some matters (urbanization, immigration, and education) ever more pressing. Even as a critique of cultural nationalism began to emerge following its heyday in the 1960s, the limitations of cultural nationalism as a public social discourse encountered resistance from women and men alike. [1]

This is good info, we now know when it had a "heyday", it's no longer in fashion, the context of use "civil rights" era etc.. All this could be incorporated. And that's the first source I randomly picked from the 48,000. -- GreenC 18:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I largely agree with everything GreenC had to say, the term definitely has wide usage. Through just doing a preliminary search on google scholar, I see a lot of research using the concept as a guiding point for their research, including research from just the past year or two. When looking at articles published since 2022 that were on google scholar, 5000 used the term cultural nationalism. Obviously, this is just a preliminary search but the fact that it is still being used in research adds to the reasons it should be kept as an article in my opinion. Sillypilled (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The term, like many others in sociology, is indeed ambiguous, as the nom claims. That would make expanding this article more challenging, but not a reason to delete it. Ample references and frequent usage establish notability. Owen× ☎ 19:23, 26 November 2023 (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.