Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recuperation (politics)

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. Whether this neologism is already notable enough. Therefore defaulting to keep for the moment. Sandstein 06:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recuperation (politics)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. TheDracologist (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a Sokol hoax in a miniaturized echo chamber. Anmccaff (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but review carefully. A bit of a specialist topic, but this seems to meet the notability criteria; Google books and Google scholar searches for things like "recuperation situationist" (eg. [1], [2]) yield a number of references to this. -- The Anome (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! That's the miniaturized echo chamber I wrote of! Anmccaff (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are almost all primary sources. Do you have any sources showing this is well-known, widespread, and significant enough outside of a small niche to warrant its own article? TheDracologist (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (responding to the nominator's query above): Some recent usage can be found in a newspaper article (Angry police officers: trade unions accuse each other of "recuperation" Actu Cote Toulouse 21 October 2016). There is also an unlinked French Wikipedia article on Récupération politique, though unreferenced. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title and page need work per our editing policy but the topic is clearly notable. See the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems OR. user:Andrew Davidson's source is about the use of this term in literary studies. This article seems to make a case that this term is defined in sociology/political sciences, and I can't find anything to substantiate this.The word itself is, of course, occasionally used in scholarly works in this field, but without it being defined and used to mean "something", rather then being just, well, a word, a figure of speech, a synonym, etc... it is just not notable. My search for this suggests this word, in this context, is used just in its dictionary definition - and wiktionary:Recuperation suffices. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to find more sources such as Detournement as Pedagogical Praxis which clearly defines and explains this concept in Situationist theory. The idea that wiktionary is an adequate substitute for Wikipedia is ludicrous. Their entry has no sources and doesn't explain the concept with any context or detail. Andrew D. (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but be open to deleting later if the term drops in usage. The term is clearly notable as per Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory. And Google books and Google scholar searches for things like "recuperation situationist" (eg. [3], [4]) yield a number of references to this. But the term is obscure in usage. I can imagine the term dying out among the intelligentsia in the social sciences and liberal arts. But the social sciences and literary communities are hard to predict. For example, How Primal Scream Therapy Has Survived Five Decades of Strangeness and Controversy. Knox490 (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a simple google phrase search shows this term is in use, and since it is in no way transparent or self-explanatory an article placing it in the body of theory which originated it is entirely justified IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.53.199 (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bit of an OR essay, no? Dloh cierekim 16:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a neologism that has taken hold. http://www.phronimon.co.za/index.php/phroni/article/view/102, http://fuckyeahrecuperation.tumblr.com/. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2017 (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.