Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postcolonial literary criticism

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 redirect to Post-colonialism. Angr/talk 20:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postcolonial literary criticism

Patent nonsense. Creator appears to be vandalism-only account. Rbellin|Talk 17:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Would be a title for a possible legitimate article, of course, but this is a joke. Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Post-colonialism, as per Rbellin's suggestion below. Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(forgot to vote above) Delete or redirect to post-colonialism, the aforementioned legitimate article. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to post-colonialism. Real phrase, but doesn't merit a separate article. --Allen 00:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legitimate Article. Cannot be relinked to post-colonialism because that is the era itself, while this article refers to the relation of the post-colonialism to contemporary literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogface1 (talk • contribs)
- No, post-colonialism is about the philosophy and literary theory, not the era. --Allen 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is indubitably a well-written and well-supported article. Postcolonial theory is properly represented by this member's addition. In my opinion, this article must remain. —the preceding comment is by 206.82.16.35 - 17:09, 8 March 2006: Please sign your posts!
Delete, probable hoax. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Article appears to be based on verifible information, and is credible.

--68.80.69.244 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, I have done some preliminary research on this subject. Most if not all of this article is both varifiable and useful. Article should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogface3 (talk • contribs)

Keep, I certainly feel that Dogface3 could not be more correct. This article is in agreement with other research performed by myself on the subject of postcolonialism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.167.200 (talk • contribs) .

Delete - hopeless US-centrism: "post-colonial" in this context doesn't mean "relating to the US post-1776" (or certainly doesn't just mean that). Until post-colonialism is big enough and good enough to need a separate page about the litcrit aspects, this should be a redirect. --Bth 11:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ever uses the word to mean this; it's not just US-centrism, it's patent nonsense. And the apparent sockpuppetry going on in this AfD confirms my suspicion it's intended as vandalism/trolling. I'm happy to write a legitimate article on this subject at some point, but what's there now is really just speedy-deletion material. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. Someone is trying to find the limits of what Wikipedia accepts. Pavel Vozenilek 22:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there was no previous page on this topic so i think this person is doing the academic community a favor. i think it would be utter nonsense to keep this person from helping those who need it. it will encourage others to join and aid for the better good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.85.160.166 (talk • contribs)

~~Keep~~, This article provides the proper foundation for an excellent article on postcolonial literary criticism. Its information is accurate. Therefore, it should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.82.16.35 (talk • contribs)
~~Keep~~, Well-founded; much thought was put into this article. It is ludicrous to label this attempt to provide valid information as sockpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.82.16.35 (talk • contribs)
- One user, one contribution please. Stifle 00:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of excess sockpuppetry and a complete lack of context. Stifle 00:50, 11 March 2006 (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.