Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign erotic

Add links
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 delete and redirect to Queer studies. Spartaz Humbug! 14:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign erotic[edit]

Sovereign erotic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article solely about coining a term that is now in limited use in academia. Before recent cleanup this was an unencyclopedic, rather promotional essay, about who has written what articles and reviews about one another's academic articles. After cleanup, most of the sourcing is to older authors that never mention the term. The majority of the writing cited is not by Indigenous writers, and not by or about Two spirit or Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Consensus on the Two spirit article was that this stuff doesn't belong there. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Colonization" section seems to be germane to the topic, but I suspect that few of these sources cite Driskill or use the term sovereign erotic. If that's the case, then even if they talk about similar things, conflating them is OR (unless, of course, another scholar makes the connection for us). If the headword has been discussed enough in the literature by independent scholars, and if this isn't fringe, then the article can stay—minus the OR. Otherwise, delete per the GNG or WP:FRINGE.
In the meantime, the deletion of the Driskill quote seems a bit unfortunate, as it showed the original context of the headword, and the deletion deprives the article of the closest thing it had to an unequivocal definition. —Ringbang (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I find filling Wikipedia with random phrases to be tedious and lacking in necessity. The phrase sovereign erotic has been used prior to the individual being credited with coining the term, for example it can be found in academic writing published by Deborah Miranda [1] and Judith Butler [2] so should the article stay it needs an entire rewrite so that it doesn't come off as a promotional piece. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://muse.jhu.edu/article/12070/summary
  2. ^ http://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA17250594&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=10407391&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1&isAnonymousEntry=true

Comment - I put this up for XFD for this discussion. I think there are certainly ideas worth exploring in the article, which is why I didn't completely gut it in the cleanup. But given Indigenous girl's comments above, I don't think WP is the place for it. I don't have an issue per se with some of the content I cut, but rather I am concerned about some of the personal claims and possible academic competition/credit WP may be being used for here. As there are uses that pre-date Driskell's, Driskell's claim of coining the term can't stand. I was already concerned about this last night. We can't let the 'pedia be used to advance any kind of misrepresentation here. I think it may be best, and in the interests of protecting the 'pedia, to just take any content by notable authors and put it in their articles. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- While the phrase can be found sporadically throughout academia it's certainly not noteworthy. Driskell seems to be the only one pushing the term. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given all these concerns I was Bold and removed Driskell's claim of coining the term. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 02:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Queer studies, delete is also possible.Redirect to Two-spirit. I'm not sure that crediting Driskill is inappropriate - however in my BEFORE I found fairly little use of this in general - and what use there was was mainly due to Driskill's work and other authors quoting/citing/mentioning Driskill - as such, this is for the most part a single researcher concept (whether being the original coiner or not - it would seem this was mainly promoted due to Driskill ).Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Modified my !vote per comments below on redirect target which convinced me. I don't have a strong opinion on redirect vs. delete, however I think this is plausible search term and it is far from self-evident it refers to Queer Studies (and connected as well, at least in terms of inspiration, to the two spirit culture).Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Queer studies would be a better fit for the redirect. The material that's been added to, and then cut from, the Two Spirit article in the past, that seems to have been from people using the term, was strongly framed in a modern Queer Studies framework and perspective, rather than an Indigenous, Two-spirit approach. From what I can see, most of the people using this term are not Two Spirit, and not involved in the Two Spirit communities. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a phrase primarily used by one individual absolutely must be retained, I agree, the redirect should be to Queer studies. The term is not used in Two Spirit or indigenous communities. Redirecting to Two Spirit would be erroneous.Indigenous girl (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the term isn't common enough to have a clear definition or redirect topic, it shouldn't have an article. The article as-written stinks of promoting one author's research program. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Power~enwiki: - I think the concept/theory is actually very well defined actually. In terms of redirect target - accept my apologies for suggesting a sub-optimal redirect target - Queer Studies and Two Spirits are not my expertise (but doing a BEFORE in academic literature for usage of a term - is).Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:21, 14 March 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sovereign_erotic&oldid=1069071077"