Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic essentialism


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Flowerparty ■ 02:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Strategic essentialism
Delete. The article is practically intelligible, and doesn't explain what is Strategic Essentialism. Also, it seems to be copied entirely. Lidless Eye 02:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Change to keep as a stub, or merge with a relevant article.--Lidless Eye 23:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * weak keep. If this is really (as the article argues in first sentence) a key idea in post colonial theory, it is probably notable enough.  Yes, it is incomprehensible now, but hopefully someone who knows something about this can clean it up and make it more intelligible.  (It is, however, post-colonialism, so it may never be an easy read.)  Bucketsofg 03:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * speedy delete this seems to be a blatant copyvio from the linked website. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC) keep following rewrite. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as copyvio. Keep the new version. Feezo (Talk) 03:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The term "strategic essentialism" seems to be in fairly wide use among certain academics (~800 Google Scholar hits; cf. ~900 for "eliminative materialism"). However, I have absolutely no idea what it's supposed to mean, and I don't think any of the current article is salvageable.   Therefore,  I say delete for now unless someone can quickly turn this into a coherent stub.   dbtfz talk 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Change to keep, since it is now a coherent stub. (Nice work, David!)   dbtfz talk 18:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as patent nonsense - I'm serious, it's just not understandable. Sandstein 07:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, now it makes sense. Keep. Sandstein 14:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep 15000 google hits and 800 google scholar hits make it notable & I think I can make an acceptable stub out of it. David Sneek 10:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I tried to give a short definition. Please have a look. But I don't know what kind of stub it should be. David Sneek 10:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per David Sneek. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, based on recent changes. A vast improvement over the original.  Kuru   talk  14:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the improvement is so much better. --Ter e nce Ong 14:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, or merge with Postcolonial theory. Jkelly 18:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merging is maybe not such a good idea, because it seems the concept also comes up sometimes in queer theory and feminist theory. David Sneek 15:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as improved, though still a merge candidate. ProhibitOnions 20:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Sociological theory --Masssiveego 08:04, 19 March 2006 (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.