Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transnational progressivism

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. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transnational progressivism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Really an attack page, but deserves full AfD discussion of this obscure ideological ax-grinding non-notable term, "sourced" (if we can call it that) to its coiner, a non-notable political writer, and a couple of science fiction writers who like to use a slang version of this term as an obscure pejorative. Orange Mike | Talk 21:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think. The current condition of the page notwithstanding, there do seem to be third-party authors discussing Forte's concept, including a fairly brief mention in this European Law Journal paper and somewhat more commentary here in Science and Society. There are also several books not authored by Forte that devote some space to the topic. Most, admittedly, are essay compilations that include Forte's work directly, but there are exceptions such as this one, where the section in question is authored by Ilya Prizel. There's also this book, but I suspect it's actually talking about something different. Someone more familiar with this material than I am may wish to ensure that this third-party commentary is independent of the Hudson Institute rather than simply written by someone other than Forte, but on its face, it looks like there could be an article here (although it wouldn't much look like the current one). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fonte's concept is notable, being covered in multiple sources. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, third party secondary sources discuss the subject. — Cirt (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep good article with sources to back it up. Askadaleia (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply Really? Where? The only footnotes are to Fonte's own work (two works, one footnoted in two different editions, the other appearing in a publication of rather partisan reputation)! Where does the non-notable Fonte get to create his own diagnosis of an ideology, then smear it all over anybody he disagrees with, like rubbing your own feces in an enemy's face? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Despite previous claims of "third party secondary sources", the only given sources are, as OrangeMike points out, from the works of the person who supposedly coined the term. How is that "third party" or "secondary"? The sources cited by Squeamish Ossifrage make only brief mention of the topic. There does not appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources.--JayJasper (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prizel has a couple of pages on the topic (and could replace many of the direct citations to Fonte). Science and Society is a relatively weak journal, but Harris provides some comparative analysis there, which is important to article development. There's also some coverage in articles in Anthropoetics, the Australian Journal of Politics and History, the Journal of Social Sciences, the Journal of Studies in International Education, the Review of International Studies, the RUSI Journal, and Society. Many of these mentions are trivial; some are less so. Regardless, I think there are enough sources out there to rewrite the sad excuse for an article that we've got now into something with actual commentary and criticism. I'd rather not be the one to do it, as I have my own opinions about the quality of Fonte's scholarship and try to avoid editing in areas where I possess a recognizable bias. But there really is quite a bit of material out there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, does have third-party coverage, per the above. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep - contigent upon rewrite with incorporation of sources cited above.--JayJasper (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2011 (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.