Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-conquest narrative
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Redirect. --VS talk 06:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Anti-conquest narrative
A contextless, unreferenced orphan, don't have any idea what it is about, only activity in two-and-a-half years are a few edits by the ubiquitous stub-sorters and re-sorters, don't know what they based those on. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete with a capital D. Nick mallory (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Postcolonial literature. It's a genuine term for a body of literature that recasts colonised people as victims rather than dangerous enemies. There is also an aspect that relates to feminist literature but I have no proper sources handy so I've left it out. There is no need for a separate article on this topic so I have merged the content into "Post-colonial literature" where it belongs. Euryalus (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It probably is possible to write an independent article on this topic, although few editors would be qualified to do it. There's a good number of Google Book hits for "anti-conquest" ([1])Zagalejo^^^ 06:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This seems to have little content and is confusing and unnecessary. Marlith 06:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- KeepThis is a widely used and important concept in post-colonial studies, and a number of fields of history. This is certainly content suitable for an encyclopedia. In any case, I've expanded it. Just because you don't understand it, don't mean its for deletion (if that were the case then most maths articles would be gone) Mostlyharmless (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, that wasn't very civil of me... sorry. It is in widespread use however. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just because a writer coins a phrase doesn't mean that phrase is notable. It has to enter the common currency of literature, academia or every day life. I understand what the phrase means, the point is whether it's a notable phrase. Nick mallory (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep per this set of results which excludes the name of the academic who coined the phrase.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:43, 5 January 2008 (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.
