Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Derrida on deconstruction


 * 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. There is clearly not a consensus to delete this article outright. Discussion of merging it back can continue at the appropriate talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Jacques Derrida on deconstruction

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

"Jacques Derrida on deconstruction" is not a suitable subject for an article, for the same reason that "Sigmund Freud on psychoanalysis" would not be a suitable subject for an article. The subject of this article appears, essentially, to be Deconstruction, and we already have an article on that. Delete or merge to "Deconstruction". Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: "Sigmund Freud on psychoanalysis" would not be a suitable subject for an article? Oh please. There are a good dozen separate articles on individual theories created by Freud: Freud's seduction theory, Oedipus complex, Electra complex, Transference, Unconscious mind, Sublimation, Polymorphously perverse, anal stage, oral stage, phallic stage, latency stage, genital stage, Id, ego and superego, defense mechanisms, Psychological repression, Denial, Displacement (psychology), Libido, Death drive, Pleasure principle, Neurotic, Reaction formation, there are several stand alone articles on Freud's publications, and more. Hey, Derrida is even mentioned in the main Sigmund Freud article! He's that notable. I think the problem here is that you do not recognize Derrida's stature in the literary and arts spheres. He's a huge figure in 20th century philosophy and linguistics. He is as important in the field of literature as Freud is in psychology and psychiatry; required reading on the syllabus at any university. His theories certainly warrant a standalone article from his biography article. OttawaAC (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, "Sigmund Freud on psychoanalysis" would be ridiculous as an article subject, and if someone created such an article, I'd nominate it for deletion promptly, just as I did for this one. We do not need an entire article about "Freud on psychoanalysis" or "Derrida on deconstruction" when we have articles ("Psychoanalysis") and ("Deconstruction") that can deal with the subject in a more encyclopedic and proper way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 22:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: We need to sort out the article on "deconstruction" and the present article could be helping, unless some of you prefer "deconstruction" to stay a battlefield between the derridean approach and the non-derridean approach. "Deconstruction" is not "psychoanalysis". I think that the article subject of this deletion proposal was created for the purpose of lightening the Deconstruction article from the Derridean influence without taking away Derrida's merits on this subject.--Christophe Krief (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Deconstruction. It is not in doubt that Derrida is notable, but for the discussion here that is not relevant. The topic "Derrida on deconstruction" also appears to be notable, as is shown by a Google book and Google scholar search. However, as it is, our article Deconstruction is almost exclusively devoted (with reason) to Derrida on deconstruction. So at best this article would be a duplicate of Deconstruction, and we shouldn't have duplicate articles. This article is an expanded POV fork of Deconstruction, having copy-pasted much of the latter's text (Duplicator report). I have not looked at whether the additions are worth keeping, but in any case this should simply redirect back to where it came from. --Lambiam 23:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If your concerns are only about duplicate, why not delete the duplicate content from the deconstruction article? This would allow a better understanding of deconstruction on Wikipedia. With only one article we will not reach quality due to divergence of ideas, but I believe that with 2 articles we may do...--79.97.130.111 (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably because that would mean removing most content from Deconstruction. Gutting an existing article to justify the creation of a new article that is about the same basic subject is a bad idea. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Better 2 good articles than a poor one I say... Plus it would give an opportunity to develop Deconstruction without focussing only on Derrida. --Christophe Krief (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing most of the content of Deconstruction would not make it a good article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It would give a wider idea of Deconstruction... As for now it is mainly about Derrida's work. I agree that Deconstruction is mainly Derrida, but there are also other approaches that cannot really be expressed correctly without the article "Jacques Derrida On Deconstruction".--Christophe Krief (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Removing most of the content of an article would not give a wider idea of its subject, it would leave it uninformative. I see no reason why an article on Deconstruction cannot describe both Derrida's contributions and those of others, if they are worth mentioning. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First I am not talking of only removing content but also adding some. Second, look at the article on Deconstruction now, the edit wars and other conflicts between Derrideans and non-Derridean are creating a mess... My opinion is that the article currenlty proposed for deletion could solve the existing conflicts that wasted the article. It would also give to Derrida the share that he deserves on Deconstruction... But this is only my opinion...--Christophe Krief (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean: are you saying that there are Derridean and anti-Derridean editors at work, screwing up the article? I assure you I am neither, and I think you should not so easily divide editors in camps. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When reading the talk page of the article on "Deconstruction", I found that some would like to work toward a wider approach of Deconstruction rather than only the Derridean approach. However, if you consider the article, you will find that about 80% of the article content is about Derrida's work... I am not judging the content of the article presently nominated for deletion, but I think that it would be a good idea, that it would help for clarity, if Derridean Deconstruction was condensed within a section of the "Deconstruction" article while a full article is dedicated to his works on Deconstruction. --Christophe Krief (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "A wider approach" does not mean anti-Derridean. I agree with your "condensed within" section, but this present article cannot be dedicated to his "works on Deconstruction" since those are, at least to a great extent, works "in" deconstruction. "On" carries a different load. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse the simplicity of my vocabulary... I used the term anti-Derridean to define those who have expressed the need to lighten up the Deconstruction's article from Derrida's work and put forward other authors. I don't think that it would give a fair Wikipedia representation of Deconstruction if Derrida's work is condensed in one section of the main article on "Deconstruction" without a second article to expend on his researches. I think that Derrida deserves an article for his work in Deconstruction and another one for his views on Deconstruction. I agree that this type of arrangement could under-state the influence of Derrida for readers of the main article. We need to make sure that the introduction will give to Derrida what belongs to Derrida and that the main article is fairly drafted. However, I do not understand the will to delete a well elaborated article like this one. It accused of being Essay like... Can someone give me clue to support this assertion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 11:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article in its current state, no matter what the title is, is in a pretty atrocious state and does not conform to various guidelines including the Manual of Style. I passed my netbook around at a table full of Wikipedians, and everyone guffawed at the quote boxes. The article itself is not well-elaborated as much as it is bloated and argumentative--essay-like. If it is kept it needs to be seriously rewritten. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok for the style issue... But the content gives a fair overview of Deconstruction... It is probably a student's work. It needs to be wikified, but it would be a waste to delete it. I am not feeling competent enough and that I have no time to work seriously on it, but I think that a tag for serious improvement would be more appropriate than deletion.--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My feelings here are mixed; I'm trying not to get distracted by my concerns with the content and genesis of the article, which is a copy and paste job of a version of Deconstruction that was already also fraught with difficulty (essay-like, improperly formatted, etc--that discussion from way back is on the talk page), and focus on this AfD. I have a few issues here, and the first is the title of the article which is simply incorrect: I don't know what Ottawa was hoping to achieve copying this article to this title and I must quibble with the nominator as well. "Derrida on deconstruction" should cover what Derrida has to say on the topic of deconstruction, separated (as much as possible) from his contribution. In my opinion, only one section of the article, "The difficulty of definition and Derrida's "negative" descriptions", qualifies as proper content. We should try and reconstruct, if you will, for the purpose of encyclopedic writing, the discussion of a theory with the formation of that theory, as difficult as that is in this area. What's really odd, for instance, is that the article does not, as it should, discuss the issues Derrida had with De Man. This article should not be about deconstruction, it should be about Derrida on deconstruction, which is probably a valid topic. The nominator said that "Freud on psychoanalysis" would be just as non-notable but that is clearly incorrect since Freud spent a lot of time criticizing his contemporaries: what Freud had to say on them (Havelock etc) would be a valid topic. Ottawa misreads Polisher's comment: the obvious importance of Oedipus complex is unrelated to "Freud on psychoanalysis": I think they misunderstand the grammar of "on". A related point on misreading: Ottawa argues at length that Derrida is notable and influential in formulating and practicing deconstruction, which no one in their right mind could deny, but it has little to do with the present discussion. If one proposes the sentence "Derrida on deconstruction", one must propose that "deconstruction" points to an entity (non-physical or otherwise, but separate from Derrida) that Derrida could have an opinion on--or a pronouncement, an evaluation, a critique--and thus one must consider that the topic of this article cannot be deconstruction (ergo, the copy and paste job was incorrect). What the article should discuss is what Derrida had to say on deconstruction as a theory, as a fad, as an academic discipline, about a reading practice, about a practice co-opted and adapted and possibly misread and abused, etc. I think that the proper topic of the article (not the one Ottawa intended) is notable for encyclopedic inclusion, but I also think that there is precious little content in the article that qualifies as pertaining to that topic. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not even a big fan of Derrida. The original reason for the split in the article from the main Deconstruction article was two-fold: 1. by moving a lengthy bit of prose on Derrida's theories, the main Deconstruction article would provide a more balanced overview of the topic as it is relevant today, giving a broad scope, and 2. give a beginning to an article on "Derrida on deconstruction". I agree with you, "Derrida on deconstruction" should be expanded with more info on his conflicts with his critics, his views on the way his theories evolved in other's works, and so on. Actually, all the pro-and anti-Derrida arguing happening on the Deconstruction Talk page, that could be redirected towards the Derrida on deconstruction article. Those folks can easily expand it by adding their contributions there. Problem solved.OttawaAC (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be quite clear about it: it would be possible to create an article specifically about Freud's version of psychoanalytic theory (as distinct from the psychoanalytic theories and contributions of other writers). That subject would also undoubtedly be notable. It would not, however, make a useful article for an encyclopedia not specifically devoted to psychoanalysis. For the purposes of a general purpose encyclopedia, Freud's psychoanalytic ideas can better be covered in Sigmund Freud and Psychoanalysis. It would only confuse matters to have a third article that was halfway between the two existing articles where the subject could be covered. The situation with "Jacques Derrida on deconstruction" is comparable. There's no need for an article that's somewhere halfway between Jacques Derrida and Deconstruction. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just don't agree. Even with the Freud example, I think it's a perfectly legitimate article proposal. Some "thinkers" are just standouts in their fields, they have huge stature, influence, they create entire intellectual movements (yes, they have critics in abundance too, but their influence is undeniable). I think too much detail on their careers is brought into their biography articles, for one thing; biographies should focus on the actual overview of their lives, then fork into another article to get into a long multi-section, nitty gritty analysis of their work (Freud on psychoanalysis for example. Jacques Derrida on deconstruction is another. ... Why not Frank Lloyd Wright on architecture? Or Albert Einstein on physics? Or Catherine of Siena on theology? Or Virginia Woolfe on literature?...) Wikipedia has 4 million articles, I think it's beyond a "generalist" encyclopedia at this point, whatever that means, I think it's more like the Encyclopedia of Everything, as long as topics can establish some notability, like Simpsons characters, etc.) Just my opinion!OttawaAC (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't agree with what? You said, "Actually, all the pro-and anti-Derrida arguing happening on the Deconstruction Talk page, that could be redirected towards the Derrida on deconstruction article. Those folks can easily expand it by adding their contributions there." That indicates to me that you don't understand what's going on and have not read my comments. I think you are confusing "pro- and anti-Derrida arguing" with arguing over the content of the article (and maybe Derrida's coverage in it?), but what is certainly clear to me from your last comments is that you don't understand "on". "Frank Lloyd Wright on architecture" means "what FLW said about architecture", not "FLW in architecture" or something like that. Problem is easily solved if this article explains what Derrida had to say about "deconstruction" as a topic. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately obtuse? I meant, to repeat the examples I gave, "Frank Lloyd Wright on architecture" meaning "FLW's views on the field of architecture and his place in it", with the same scope applied to the other visionary intellectuals that I listed as examples. If you want to insist that I'm a dolt regardless of what I write, fine, but I ain't changing my vote. OttawaAC (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only to Mrs. Drmies, and her mother. If you (apparently) agree with my definition of "on" (and I think this is new), then you will have to agree that this present article should not contain the content that it does. As for your vote, I don't care--I agree with the "keep" part, and I think the rest of your commentary is not to the point and you would have been better off keeping it to yourself, but fortunately this is not a debate club and we're not here to score points. I just can't figure out, for the life of me, what got into you to create this article--to come up with this title and then copy and paste the content of a different article into it. Is that what they teach in grad schools these days? Drmies (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that one of the issues debated here is beyond the concept of Deconstruction. What are the limits of Wikipedia? How much information shall be provided on each subject? Shall the encyclopaedia limit its approach on each subject or shall it expand in a detailed demonstration. Shall the article Of Grammatology be a detailed "line by line" or "paragraph per paragraph" analyse of the work, or shall it stay a general overview as it is at the moment... A detailed analysis of the work, of course, should not be the result of one person's work but express published researches on the subject. I hope you will understand my point. --Christophe Krief (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to the topic: this is already long enough. "...should not be the result of one person's work but express published researches on the subject"--that's how Wikipedia works. We do not publish primary research, so no, that article should never be an analysis of the work: that's not what encyclopedias do. Drmies (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On a subject like Deconstruction it would be difficult to describe the subject without analysis...--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Difficult, yes, but that's no reason to make an exception saying that a difficult article doesn't have to be neutral and encyclopedic. The problem with the deconstruction article is that there are basically three ways people would write it: (a) long, unexplained, verbatim quotes from Derrida; (b) an attempt to interpret and explain Derrida that would be largely based on the author's own research; or (c) a cursory, detached overview that goes into no detail, which would annoy people in the field by giving the implication that there is less to say about Deconstruction than about the average Pokemon. We have a mishmash of (a) and (b) right now. I personally think (c) is the only way that is actually an acceptable style for a Wikipedia article, but who can write it? An outsider who doesn't know the terminology? A self-hating deconstruction theorist?
 * Incidentally, returning to the topic, if that cursory version of Deconstruction existed, then the article under discussion -- Jacques Derrida on deconstruction -- would be an unnecessary fork. rspεεr (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Deconstruction. Rather than becoming a "battlefield" in which "derrideans" and "non-derrideans" viciously lay waste to one another, I think the focused comparison and contrast between these differing viewpoints of the same idea would be most readable in a single page.  You have to remember that if more and more editors edit the two separate pages, there will likely be a divergence and decline in cohesiveness of purpose of these two articles (which really by their nature need to be compared/contrasted, I believe).  Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a textbook.  Zujua (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "You have to remember that if more and more editors edit the two separate pages, there will likely be a divergence and decline in cohesiveness of purpose of these two articles..." Wouldn't we then really enter the subject of Deconstruction?--Christophe Krief (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongly keep per WP:GNG and WP:RS. This is an extremely-well sourced article.  The nomination is a mix of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:FORK, the latter argument being incomplete. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT has nothing to do with it. I didn't say anything about liking or not liking Derrida and deconstruction. Rather, I don't think that the article is encyclopedic; Lambiam states the case against it well. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It's entirely proper to have an article on an important philosopher's view of an important philosophical topic, assuming there is sufficient material to write about. Should Political philosophy of Immanuel Kant be merged into Political philosophy?  The main Deconstruction article is very long, and this article could stand just as a break-out from that article; some reorganisation of content may be a good idea, but that's no reason for an AfD. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that the difference between this and your example is that Political philosophy is a much broader topic that Deconstruction. As others have said previously, the article on deconstruction is based almost entirely on the work of Derrida.  As they stand now, the two articles are largely carbon copies of each other.  Zujua (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, suggesting re-title to 'Derridean deconstruction'. --→gab  24 dot  grab← 17:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want the article to be kept, you need to offer some rationale. I oppose a rename to "Derridean deconstruction"; it implies that there is some other kind that could be opposed to the "Derridean" one. WP:NOR. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2012 (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.