Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border imperialism


 * 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 delete. Without prejudice to potentially merging some article content to the article for the author of the book that coins the term. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Border imperialism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I worry that this article is written more as an essay (WP:NOTESSAY) and based mostly in primary sources. 18 of the 27 references, two out of three sources, are authored by Harsha Walia, the creator of the concept the article talks about, including 16 that directly reference Undoing Border Imperialism, the book that coined this term. Four other sources consist in the publication Decolonizing Feminism: Challenging Connections between Settler Colonialism and Heteropatriarchy, which are the base of the Settler colonialism section. This means that apparently only 5 of the 27 references are not primary sources. Jamez42 (talk) 11:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the nominator this isn’t an encyclopaedic article. It’s not really even an essay as it has disjointed sections that do not add up to a coherent argument.  It’s a sort of book review with other related stuff thrown in.  Walia’s book looks to me to be notable in itself, so possibly the entire article could be repurposed on that basis, but otherwise I can’t see a basis for keeping it. Mccapra (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete — Totally agree. The article doesn't meet general WP:GNG. The sources are generally primary. One source is behind a paywall. I read an article almost completely and I think it's someone's invention of a new way to describe (In highly biased, leftist way) typical immigration policy of any country in the world which is focused on its restriction. I also noted that there are some mentions in the news but they don't seem reliable to use it as sources.  DAVRONOV A.A. ✉ ⚑ 12:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nom mentions a number of page-quality issues (over-reliance on primary sources, over-reliance on sources that are not independent, written in essay-style). I think they are correct that these are issues with the quality of the page that should be addressed. However, these are not issues for AFD which is concerned with whether the article should be deleted or not, AFD is not clean-up. The only issue raised here that cannot be addressed through simple editing is whether there is sufficient, independent, reliable sourcing available (not necessarily cited in the article at present) to sustain the notability of the article. I find that there is based on the following sources discussing the Walia's theory of "Border imperialism": 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. I do wonder if the book might be a better target for this article than the theory per se, but it appears notable either way. FOARP (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is thing called common sense. A new term to describe a policy of cross-border movements restrictions in case of war/crisis doesn't make the term notable by default (WP:NAD, WP:MADEUP). At least 3 sources you have provided do not analyse, evaluate or interpret the subject (term) itself: the two from "the nation", and a Cambridge one. . It's rather embeded into a more wider research on non-directly related to the term matters of immigration. The term is mentioned in these cases but not in a way to make it notable. Another source you have delivered is a simple advertisement  of the book. In other words neither of 4 sources scrutinize the subject by itself as it required per WP:GNG. There is also an alternative to a deletion: to move the part of the article into  Harsha Walia one as a part of her works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Davronov (talk • contribs)
 * I think you are possibly mistaking me saying this concept appears notable with me agreeing with it in some way. Just so we're clear on this: I do not think this concept is particularly useful. The sources demonstrate the notability of this concept by citing it and describing it - they do not need to do more than this to demonstrate notability. Objections to the article based on the present state of it, unless they are invoking WP:TNT (which I do not think justified as it is eminently savable), do not invoke a WP:DELREASON. FOARP (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think about whether you agree or not with what this article is saying. I'm pointing out to the sources which can't make up a separate article. There is simply not enough of them that could make it to pass WP:GNG. I also checked out the first source you have mentioned: it doesn't analyze the subject closely either, making 5 out of 10 sources unreliable for notability. If you would have a good research on the statements in the article proving the subject's theory and reviewing these works I would agree to keep it in place and clean up but not otherwise.  DAVRONOV A.A.  ✉ ⚑ 21:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - sure AfD is not cleanup, but that does not apply here as there is nothing left after a cleanup. Most of the article is just a summary of the book, including making contentious statements in Wikivoice. There is also a tangent on settler colonialism which is based mostly on a single paper. It also cites three times an opinion piece by Walia in TeleSUR, listed at WP:RSP as deprecated for being "a Bolivarian propaganda outlet". This topic is not notable aside from the author (who already has an article), as largely borne out by the 10 links above. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I find the arguments of FOARP persuasive. I do not find the nominator's argument persuasive. AfD is not clean up and if the article is a ref bomb of primary sources, we can fix that. Sources do exist and therefore this article merits inclusion. Wm335td (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete this article does not really move beyond the expression of one person's world views with position pushing terminology. We already have an article on her, we do not need an article pushing her worldviews masquerading as a neutral content article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect (or merge) to author -- The article is essentially a book review of what is probably a controversial work. The title is WP:NEO.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Harsha Walia, per Peterkingiron. When the primary sources are removed, all that's left of the neologism can be covered adequately in the parent article and split out, as needed, summary style. Best compromise to retain the "keep" sources above while respecting the more convincing "delete" rationales. czar  16:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with the other votes to delete. I do not think the article passes WP:GNG. I also think the article reads too much like an essay. -- Telescopegenius (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.