Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hegemony discursive theory Laclau-Mouffe

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 merge to Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Sandstein 08:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hegemony discursive theory Laclau-Mouffe[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of IP editor. Original rationale: This page should be deleted: it contradicts itself throughout, is almost entirely inaccurate, and verges on plain nonsense. It certainly has little to do with Mouffe and Laclau. For these reasons, I have nominated the page for deletion. (diff) clpo13_(talk) 18:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references are more than adequate. This is one of the central ideas of a book that has almost 12,000 citations, so certainly notable. Bad grammar is not a reason for deletion, and "verging on plain nonsense" is merely postmodernism's job description. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I initially assumed the rather awkward text indicated this to be a machine translation from the linked Russian article. However a Google Russian-English translation provides a more comprehensible equivalent of the present article text, at least maintaining recognisable concepts such as "millennium" (not "containing a thousand"). AllyD (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge: The first question here is whether this merits a distinct article or is covering the same topic as Hegemony_and_Socialist_Strategy#Reception and should be merged there? That article is woefully under-referenced, whereas this article carries a number of citations of reference books which would appear to confirm its notability (though I do not have the books to hand to check). On the other hand, the present article is an indigestable exposition which could weigh down the article on the book. I would suggest a selective merge of the Influence subsection with its references and the Bibliography section into Hegemony_and_Socialist_Strategy. It may also be possible to expand that article's Organization section with some material from this article's Fundamental regulations section, but only that which is both clear and referenced. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge per AllyD, I certainly wouldn't wish to guess which would be better. Notability seems well established, so simple deletion is not in question. However the translation gook of the gobble methinks is it. Therefore a merge to take advantage of the references with as much of a rewrite as is possible may be the best option. But AfD is not for cleanup. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2016 (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.