Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Settler colonialism

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Settler colonialism

Delete: Biased and not notable. Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to colonialism? Or Weak keep (?) as it seems to be a commonly used phrase on the New Left? Dknow...--Urthogie 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to colonialism per Urthogie's rationale that it may be a common phrase in use, but the entry otherwise seems to tie content together without sourcing the connection to the central thesis, thus engaging in a form of original research through juxtaposition. Tewfik^Talk 05:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to colonialism per Urthogie. Change to Delete. Seems like some prank - note that the article's creator and main contributor is the same editor who nominated it for deletion. Isarig 05:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: No, it's not a prank. The nominator/original author was a bit frustrated, partly my fault (unintentionally) being too harsh on his edits : ( --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to colonialism. I'm not absolutely opposed to keeping, it would just need better sourcing. However, the fact that Colonialism apparently already has a section that addresses settler colonialism and has room to expand with sourced material, makes me opt for a redirect. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, will reconsider upon seeing some evidence that this expression is stable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isarig.Baka man 17:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has too many POV issues to present a balanced viewpoint. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep term is very widely used in pol science & history (explained in colonialism article) as the most damaging form of colonialism, obviously needs it's own article. also opinions on current content ('pov issues' etc.) are not relevant to afd, fix them or discuss on article talk page. ⇒ bsnowball 09:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too much information not relating to the subject. Also very pov-ish, but as above noted, these are not deletion criteria. --Infrangible 10:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per bsnowball. Agree with Infrangible that POV and lack of sourcing are not reasons to delete. This article has potential but needs to be expanded and improved. --Richard 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment POV might not be a reason to delete, but the extreme pervasion of OR and the entry's generally low quality make redirecting to the main colonialism article and defaulting to its better written section an acceptable use of AfD. Tewfik^Talk 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I'd hate to admit, there is alot of sense in this article. It goes into detail of the "Anglosaxon" expansion across the world. This can be good to read up for a country's respective history (eg. in Australia, "Stolen Generation" is a popular case study if you study the settlement side of the First Fleet etc.). Tytrox 12:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge // Liftarn
Keep per comments above; also note that POV problems do not require deletion to resolve, just pushing the little edit button on the top of the page. Jerry 19:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve.Harrypotter 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bsnowball, the only issues at stake are content issues that can be resolved through the regular editing process. Yamaguchi先生 03:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.