Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coloniality of power


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Coloniality of power

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Reads like an essay, and a large percentage of its content appears to be an unpublished synthesis of its references. It is quite possible that this may be a notable subject, but this articles content does not appear to be usable in an encyclopedic article. Da.squirrels (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. OR essay. Might be something worth merging to colonialism but I can't see it. Redirect. Szzuk (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This isn't really a synthesis, that's pretty much exactly what the main authors that have discussed the idea, Quijano and Lugones say about coloniality of power and gender. What I'm not sure is whether it's notable or not, as I'm not certain of the specific requirements for notability of academic theories. I'll come back later once I've worked that out. Kate (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rescue by reframing as less essay oriented and treating "coloniality of power" as a conceptual object. Notability exists but is not shown here.--Carwil (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep AFD is not cleanup. See WP:BEFORE.  Google book search shows 2,060 results from books using this term.  References already exist in the article to prove the subject is notable.  You can easily read through the book results and find others talking about this notable concept.  The talk page for this article has never had any discussion on it at all.  Any problems with how it is written should've been discussed there before sending it to AFD.   D r e a m Focus  19:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite. Andrevan@ 06:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable concept. Needs copyedit/wikfy/rewrite. --Anthem of joy (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - very well known concept, but needs work, no reason for deletion.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue.  D r e a m Focus  06:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete [or Redirect to Anibal Quijano ]: WP:OR essay. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Anibal Quijano. Seems to be his baby. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Article is a mess but its a worthwhile search term. Redirect could be undone if someone re-wrote. Szzuk (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball   Watcher  21:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect/merge. The citations currently in the article do not establish its notability as they are mostly to works by the authors whose theories are summarized (in ridiculously impenetrable jargon) in the article. That is, there's insufficient evidence of substantial third party coverage.  Sandstein   07:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment (Again) Since this got relisted and I found the books associated while packing, I'm going to have a go at rewriting to make this more encylopaedic. Probably take me a day or two to get to it though. I really do think it's notable, it's just in terrible shape. Kate (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just completed a major edit on this article, taking out all the fluff and unsourced material, adding more sources and broader applications, and making it much less jargony. It still needs some work, and I'll come back to it (if people have suggestions for improvement that would be grand! - I know the language still needs work and it really should be a broader discussion) but I think it's now good enough in terms of penetrability and reliability and shows enough notability to !vote keep. Kate (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep New version looks good, thanks to Kate for the rewrite. Francis Bond (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, my original nomination criteria of OR and ESSAY no longer apply. Thank you for the rewrite Kate. Da.squirrels (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: although clearly superior to the original WP:OR essay, the new version relies heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources, particularly Quijano(2000). It is therefore unclear as to whether the topic demonstrates "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What type of secondary sources? It's really not clear what sort of sources should be used for academic theories. I've looked at a few similar pages but they weren't much help, and it's not exactly the sort of thing the New York Times talks about a lot. Kate (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Third party sources exhibiting sufficient intellectual independence and depth of coverage, such that a WP:NPOV presentation can be made (which cannot happen when the topic is presented mainly from the viewpoint of its originator). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Commment on notabality — "Coloniality of Power" and "colonialidad de[l] poder" both have hundreds or thousands of Google scholar hits. These aren't secondary sources, but suggest notability. Likewise foundational texts on coloniality circulate in required reading compilations like the Latin American Cultural Studies Reader, or the Latin American Subaltern Studies Reader, and a slightly broader topic has a reader of its own in Coloniality at Large. I'm not sure how best to insert these facts, but the cited quote on notability does not stand alone.--Carwil (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2011 (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.