Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decoloniality

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 no consensus. This is clearly a split debate. Both sides to the argument make valid points. Those wishing to delete the article argue that it fails our neutral point of view policy and that Wikipedia is not for neologisms. Those wishing to keep the article argue that it meets out notability guidelines. I'm persuaded by both arguments here and believe that they are both as valid as each other. Given this, I must decide that this is debate has ended without consensus and as such the conclusion defaults to keep. I strongly suggest a rewrite of the article to take into account the concerns of the users wishing to delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decoloniality

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

Article appears to just be an essay that was copied and pasted here. Capscap (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Looks like someone's college thesis. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. Intothat darkness 15:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing like a Wikipedia article, falling entirely foul of WP:NPOV, introducing a new and apparently made-up term, and arguing for it in a tendentiously written WP:ESSAY. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement from author [implied keep] I wrote this entry. It is a synthesis of information found in the listed references. It is not filled with my opinions. It is not copied and pasted from a thesis. It is created entirely for the purpose of introducing the term to the wikisphere, and distinguishing the term from others which are often conflated with decoloniality. I did not make up the term. "Decoloniality" and decolonial studies are widely recognized in ethnic studies discourse. A simple search of Decoloniality on Google verifies it isn't made up. Decolonial is no more "tendentious" or impartial than the terms Eurocentrism, racism, or post-colonialism. To argue that it "runs entirely afoul" of wikipedia's impartiality standard is to argue that any entry based on critical theory should not be so critical. — Preceding text originally posted on Talk:Decoloniality (diff) by Nlsilva (talk⋅contribs) 22:14, 7 June 2013‎ (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capscap (talk • contribs)
Keep: Google Scholar and Google Books do seem to provide lots of reliable sources for this term - and I therefor think we should have an article. I think the current version is essayish in style but the topic and the fact there is substantial content make deletion undesirable. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original essay about a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Objections to the style of the article in its current form are irrelevant. The article has citations (even if they're not formatted correctly) and, thus, passes under WP:GNG. I am curious as to why Chiswick Chap feels this is "a new and apparently made-up term" when citations are given, or indeed why Carrite calls this a neologism? A quick Google search shows that is not the case, so I am surprised to see such opinions expressed. Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This week's social science buzzword; start one and the path to full professorship is yours... The fact that this is a non-stop attempt to promote a new word as an encyclopedic concept in contradistinction to decolonialism is a dead giveaway. Burn with fire. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not for editors to make value judgements over what is a "social science buzzword". It is certainly not for editors to ignore WP:GNG. We are guided by reliable sources and multiple sources in the academic literature clearly demonstrate notability: Saal (2013), "How to Leave Modernity Behind: The Relationship Between Colonialism and Enlightenment, and the Possibility of Altermodern Decoloniality", Budhi 17(1); Drexler-Dreis (2013), "Decoloniality as Reconciliation", Concilium: International Review of Theology, 1:115-122; Maldonado-Torres (2012), "Decoloniality at Large: Towards a Trans-Americas and Global Transmodern Paradigm", Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 1(3); Gilmartin (2013), "The Colonial Tendencies of Internationalisation", Querelles, 16; Yehia (2007), "Descolonización del conocimiento y la práctica: un encuentro dialógico entre el programa de investigación sobre modernidad /colonialidad / decolonialidad latinoamericanas y la teoría actor-re", Tabula Rasa, 6; Boatca (2012), "What's in a name? postcolonialism and decoloniality as difference within sameness" Second ISA Forum of Sociology; Bhambra (2012), "Postcolonialism and decoloniality: A dialogue" Second ISA Forum of Sociology; Tataryn (2012), "Irregularities are the New Frontier – McNevin’s Contesting Citizenship", Theory & Event, 15(4); Mignolo (2011), "Geopolitics of sensing and knowing: on (de)coloniality, border thinking and epistemic disobedience", Postcolonial Studies, 14(3): 273-283. Explain to me how your WP:JDLI overrides reliable source citations. Bondegezou (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if subject is deemed to be appropriate, then WP:TNT it. If not, then just plain get rid of it. Reasons per above. Ansh666 19:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:TNT is merely an essay and I fail to see how it is applicable. WP:FIXIT is a guideline, and WP:PRESERVE is policy. Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like a normal college essay to me, not an encyclopedia article. Ansh666 17:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, WP:NEO is policy, too, and one which overrides WP:PRESERVE. Ansh666 22:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NEO and WP:PRESERVE are both policies. I see nothing that says that one overrides the other. Can you point out where that is said? Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- Agree that there are problems with the article, but it is a documented term and the article is well sourced:prejudice against social science buzzwords is not enough to argue deletion Rankersbo (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Rankersbo. It is not so bad that it needs TNT. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is not a subject that I know, but we have a list of what are clearly academic sources. If the term is in fact being used by academics, WP ought to have an article on it, however little we may like the term. My view is strenghthened by the number of sources cited by Bondegezou. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. I have concerns that this article documents a neologism in such a manner as to promote it. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are multiple academic papers on this subject going back to 2007. How does it fit WP:NEO? How many academic papers are needed before you don't consider it so? WP:NEO says, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Those have been provided. Bondegezou (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carrite above. The term is decolonialism. Perhaps we could move the article there and fix it up accordingly. --BDD (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this AfD, 14 academic papers discussing decoloniality (as distinct from "decolonialism") have been presented. It would seem to me to be original research to ignore multiple reliable source citations because of your argument based on... well, if I may ask, based on what? What is your and Carrite's verifiable basis for rejecting the term? Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As has been argued above there are sources which have used the term Decoloniality in their title. I have added these to the article.

Walsh, Catherine. (2012) "“Other” Knowledges,“Other” Critiques: Reflections on the Politics and Practices of Philosophy and Decoloniality in the “Other” America." TRANSMODERNITY: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World 1.3.
Wan-hua, Huang. (2011) "The Process of Decoloniality of Taiwan Literature in the Early Postwar Period." Taiwan Research Journal 1: 006.
Bhambra, G. (2012). Postcolonialism and decoloniality: A dialogue. In The Second ISA Forum of Sociology (August 1-4). Isaconf.
Drexler-Dreis, J. (2013). Decoloniality as Reconciliation. Concilium: International Review of Theology-English Edition, (1), 115-122.
Wanzer, D. A. (2012). Delinking Rhetoric, or Revisiting McGee's Fragmentation Thesis through Decoloniality. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 15(4), 647-657.
Saal, B. (2013). How to Leave Modernity Behind: The Relationship Between Colonialism and Enlightenment, and the Possibility of Altermodern Decoloniality. Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture, 17(1), 49-80.

I am not sure why this is not a wide enough usage of the term to warrant an article. A newish term which has been used a lot amongst a group of academics (Msrasnw (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Several people above have cited WP:NEO, which is an important policy. So, let's look at what it says. "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. [...] Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. [...] when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." The key point being made (which really just comes back to WP:V and WP:GNG) is that we need reliable secondary sources "such as books and papers" that are about the term before it can be covered. I count 14 academic papers above that are about the term, and more are already given in the article. As WP:NEO says, "when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic". Those secondary sources are available and given. Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2013 (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.