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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High culture[edit]

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

Reason- Article does not contain a single clear citation of the term 'High culture',and does not even demonstrate that this term is of recognised use or definition. It pretends this term was used by Matthew Arnold for example, without being able to produce a quote from him or any other of the cultural critics who are named. References on Google to 'high culture' are either to this article or derivatives from it, or to journalism punning on 'high' meaning drugged. Basically the whole thing is a WP:OR ramble So DELETE.Smerus (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a good article now. An article on the topic seems like it would be possible, but needs some real sources that discuss the topic itself in depth.Borock (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A recognized term. While article needs more citations, I'm baffled by this nomination. Clearly notable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JohnnyB256, this is a term that is recognized. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The association with Matthew Arnold stands up - see here, for example. Other sources contrast the concept with popular culture and so the article suits us nicely. The rest is a matter of article improvement not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High Society is what it is often called, but reading through the article, its the same thing. Upper class has a similar concept. We can also call them Snotty Elitist I suppose. Dream Focus 13:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very well known term. Two editors voting delete should read Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in deletion_discussions#Poorly_written article before !voting on or nominating another article. Ikip (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well known term, well written article. _Met^ty 18:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in both undergrduate and graduate courses, I recall comparisons of high versus low culture coming up in class. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a waste-of-time nomination of an article whose subject, I would have thought, would have been obviously notable to a 59-year-old graduate of Kings College, Cambridge. A few of the books on the subject are ISBN 9780631214144, ISBN 9780631223092, ISBN 9781863738705 and ISBN 9780465026098. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article could be better written (i.e., more lucid and more elegant), it does cover a notable subject that is not well-covered elsewhere. Consider too that Highbrow is a colloquialism for High culture, and as such is rich in its own meanings although distinct from its progenitor in the same way as are many such colloquialisms. (Hint: the previous two sentences are written from a 'high culture' perspective, and as well are written in a 'highbrow' style.) Sctechlaw (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article may not live up to its name, but it is an important one. --WngLdr34 (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2009 (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.