Intellectual: It should just be redirected to Intelligentsia .  - car chasm ( talk ) 21:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I see there is a lot of sources treating intellectual as a class in society.  Famous philosophers talking about the concept, etc.  Adler3 ( talk ) 00:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Carchasm, this is unnecessary fork.  Marcocapelle ( talk ) 05:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Social science .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the concept of the "Intelligentsia" as a class is clearly a different one from the role of the intellectual per se .  -- Jahaza ( talk ) 15:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The word 'Intellectual' has defined in many ways.  Intellectuals can be found in all walks of life, from academia to politics, from the arts to the sciences.  Intellectuals are known for their ability to analyze complex ideas and concepts.  FXBeats21 ( talk ) 07:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to intelligentsia which is a proper article.  Having two articles on what is essentially one topic risks content forks; this article is just a rather baggy essay.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep intellectual (a social role) is clearly a distinct concept from intelligentsia (a social class).  This article is not a haphazard collection of unrelated things bearing the same name, but a summary of a broadly defined social concept that has multiple aspects.  Such is the nature of sociological study of roles.  SFB 22:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  09:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but for all the wrong reasons.  Reading both articles, it's obvious that the reason why Wikipedia cannot differentiate fully between intelligentsia and intellectuals is that society cannot either.  In fact both articles define themselves with overlap to the other.  Ideally, the subject could be treated in a single article.  But at the moment, Inteligentsia is a very narrow article dealing with the subject exclusively as connected with the history of Eastern Europe and Russia, while Intellectual is far broader but perhaps less rigorous, but nevertheless peppered with genuine historical reference.  There is slim-to-zero chance that anyone is going to carry out the enormous amount of work needed to create a satisfactory merge, so until then, we have two articles covering different aspects of an obviously notable subject that might be two subjects.  So my ! vote is a practically-minded keep until such times as someone comes up with a concrete desire to do the work.  Redirect is hopeless because without the merge, you'd lose an enormous amount of genuine information about non-Eastern intellectualism.  Elemimele ( talk ) 12:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SFB above.  There's enough of a distinction between the individuals (intellectuals) and the overall class (intelligentsia) to warrant separate articles.  Both articles need work but the subjects are notable and well sourced enough for their own articles.  Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 13:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Seems that the core of the article is WP:WORDISSUBJECT .  The parts of the article that are not WORDISSUBJECT are Intellectual status class , which has it's own article, Public intellectual and Persecution of intellectuals , which need their own seperate articles, and Criticism , which is mostly primary.  Spinning out might be a good idea.  small jars t c 17:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It looks like there is a difference between Intellectual and Inteligentsia, and there are plenty of references and background to build this beyond a DICDEF.  I think that background is the key difference between this and a DICDEF and there's no need to merge into Inteligentsia.  Royal Autumn Crest ( talk ) 17:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Certainly room for an article here without devolution into the dreaded DICTDEF.  Note: I wrote an article on public intellectual some time ago which was my one and only start to be merged or deleted.  That still sort of pisses me off.  I see now that "Public Intellectual" is a whole section of this piece and target for a search of the phrase which adds to my commitment that this is an encyclopedic topic.  Carrite ( talk ) 15:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I have to say as the nominator I'm very confused at all the "keep" votes that appear to be giving valid reasons for deletion.  I have yet to see a single policy-based vote arguing in favor of keeping this article, it's all WP:ILIKEIT , and so I request that all the keep votes be disregarded by the closing admin.  - car chasm ( talk ) 16:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't see much of a case for deleting this, to be honest.  The article's content goes beyond a definition of the subject, etymology and the kind of things which appear in dictionary entries, so it's not forbidden by WP:NOTDICT (and permitted by WP:WORDISSUBJECT ).  Sure, the term "intellectual" has been applied to different things over time and in different cultures, but that doesn't make the article original research.  The article clearly hasn't invented the concept of an intellectual or created it from various usages, it's a concept which an average person would be familiar with.  Yes, there may be some overlap with Intelligentsia , but that's not a reason to delete or redirect this article, especially as Intelligentsia mainly focuses on eastern Europe.  Hut 8.5 11:53, 31 May 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.

Discussion outcome: keep