Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of thinkers influenced by 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. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of thinkers influenced by deconstruction[edit]

Ridiculous list. There are no substantive thinkers in the humanities since the 70s who were not "influenced by deconstruction." Some reacted against it, some followed from it, some were just plain influenced by it by virtue of having read it in grad school. But you can't make it through a graduate program in English without deconstruction influencing your development. To isolate particular people as "influenced by deconstruction" is fundamentally to trivialize what was, in fact, a landmark moment in a particular field of thought that shifted the entire direction of the field. Nobody didn't respond to deconstruction in some way - this is like saying "List of physicists influenced by Newton." Phil Sandifer 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment unmanagable list of potentially huge proportions, "thinkers" poorly defined, but... The list is of higher quality and focus than the poor title would suggest, and reading discussion on the article's talk page leads me to believe that efforts are underway to address some of these problems. I'm willing to argue for deletion in the future, but don't want to cut off attempts to repair the concept. Pete.Hurd 17:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Phil Sandifer is right, and this has been discussed on the article's Talk page with no satisfactory response. No reasonable criterion for inclusion has been specified, so the list is already a hodgepodge, and it can only grow even more miscellaneous (and less useful) as it is updated. Neither "thinker" nor "influenced by deconstruction" is sufficiently specific to exclude almost anything. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Your reasons for wanting to delete the list are focused on the title of the list and not the content. If you take a look at the list, it doesn't include people that are merely aware of American-style deconstruction or people that know about it and simply reacted negatively to it. The list only includes *published* people that have written about deconstruction, used uniquely deconstructive concepts in a published work, or have outright stated that deconstruction has influenced their thinking. If you'll notice, people like Allan Bloom or Slavoj Zizek are not included in the list even though it's beyond dispute that they are/were aware of deconstruction and have reacted to it. The list has not grown very much for an extended period of time because the number of significant thinkers who meet the above criteria are limited. Perhaps you could address the merits of the actual list and not rely on a straw man argument that attacks the title. Hay4 19:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So the article should be kept because it's nothing like what it says it is? That's novel. There are plenty of lists, articles, and other overviews of deconstruction that I'd support, but this list is just a ridiculous attempt. Phil Sandifer 03:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm looking for you to explain *why* the list is a "ridiculous attempt." And when you do so, I expect you to talk about things in the list and not opine on what you think deconstruction is or should be. Moreover, when you talk about the list, I don't want to see you criticize the list by saying it's "infinitely expandable" because (a) it's not, and (b) other lists (such as the list of atheists) seem to do just fine with a much larger pool of potential listees. Of course, if you don't think the title of the list is a good one, then I'd be happy to hear your suggestions for a new title. Disagreeing with the title of a list is not a good reason to delete an entire list.Hay4 04:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I haven't said a word about what deconstruction is or should be. Please do not take this as some sort of attack or critique - far from it. Nor is the issue that the list could become very large. We have means for dealing with that. The issue is that I have no sense of who does not belong on the list. Phil Sandifer 14:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - (1) I didn't say that you had "said a word about what deconstruction is or should be." I was merely letting you know what I didn't want to hear. (2) You have no sense of who does not belong on the list? I set out criteria for inclusion in the list and people who don't meet the criteria don't belong on the list. It's pretty simple. Hay4 16:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is not ridiculous. There is a definite community of scholars who see themselves as under the umbrella of Derrida's work. The links within this community are strong, although there are divisions within it also. There are, of course, some people who are more definitely beneath the umbrella than others, and some about whom there will always be argument. But if there is debate and discussion about who to include and who to exclude from the list, so much the better. Deconstruction is not just a reading strategy, nor is it reducible to "an ethical and political stance." But the AfD page is not the place to debate what deconstruction is or is not. This list may well be helpful to people who do not know all the names on the list and may be interested in finding out about their work. I also note that some of the entries on this list are important scholars who do not yet have their own entries. For that reason, the list is useful in identifying these people, where they teach, and a brief statement about them. To delete the list would delete this information. It is also handy that the university affiliations of all these people are collated for easy reference. The list is well referenced, notable, and factual. There are only benefits to keeping the list. There are no benefits to deleting it, nor are there any persuasive arguments. FNMF 22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the list isn't List of people who cite Derrida a lot in their work. Under its current title, there is no sane or usable rationale for including or excluding any prominant humanities researcher, as deconstruction, broadly construed as this list offers it, has influenced just about everybody. List of thinkers in the deconstructive tradition might make sense. But this is just an incoherent topic for a list. Far too broad, no useful criteria to include or exclude. Phil Sandifer 03:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Put another way - name a thinker in the humanities since 1980 who has not been influenced by deconstruction. Who exactly is excluded from thls list? Phil Sandifer 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, Phil, but I can't agree. I think the list is more or less coherent as a group. I don't believe I was arguing that the list should be of people who "cite Derrida a lot in their work." This is not the measure of influence. I don't consider that the list is so wide-open as you make out. Yes, it is possible to construe "influence" broadly. But it is necessary to look at the format of the entry itself. It seems to me that most if not all entries on the list include a brief quotation indicating the character of the connection to deconstruction, and/or a brief description of that connection, supported by a reference. This is a lot more than just a list of anybody who ever read a book by Derrida. The argument you're putting seems to me to be more like an argument to change the name of the list, rather than an argument against the list as such. Personally I don't have a problem with the name of the entry, and don't consider it a make-or-break issue for the fate of the entry. To me the list seems both sane and usable. FNMF 03:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Hay4 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a strikingly excellent example. First , the criteria are clear, specific and sophisticated: "written about deconstruction; used uniquely deconstructive concepts in a published work; or has stated outright that deconstruction has influenced his or her thinking." Second, the individual are well characterised, with useful description--the capsule summaries are excellent. Third, the list is fully sourced. A true model for how to do this sort of article. DGG 08:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted, those criteria were added after the deletion nomination, and do make me feel somewhat better about the whole thing. Phil Sandifer 14:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG FNMF, and others Johnbod 20:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is very good. The only "ridiculous attempt" I see is Phil Sandifer's unilateral decision to submit this article to be considered for deletion. 141.161.127.75 21:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the consensus is...[edit]

After five days of discussion and voting, most voters decided that the list should *not* be deleted. So, I am going to remove the "up for deletion" tag from the list. Hay4 19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - an admin should close in the normal way; I reverted. Johnbod 19:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, non-admins are allowed to close AfD debates if there is a clear consensus to keep an article. However, for the sake of avoiding conflicts of interest, it is usually inadvisable to do so for editors who have been involved in the debate - particularly those who !voted to keep it. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:38, 11 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.