Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superdiversity

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Superdiversity

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

Wikipedia is not a Dictionary - and there is nothing academic or useful here that could not be easily included in one of the other articles on Diversity. Adding 'super' to a topic doesn't make it a new topic, it just makes it part of the original topic that could be validly discussed on the main topic page if applicable. Dysklyver 10:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlenko Article: I challenge anyone to read Pavlenko's paper. I think the criticisms make the page worthwhile. After all, this is a concept that attracts a lot of funding. Yonk (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC) — Yonk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have read the paper and now am even more certain that adding 'super' to a word does not make it a new topic. There is nothing here that has not been considered by scholars of 'ordinary' diversity. Dysklyver 21:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 10:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 10:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly meeting our notability criteria, with thousands of Google Scholar results for the term. This source explains how the concept differs from diversity, according to its proponents. I could be persuaded to support a more precise merge proposal, but the concept is notable and should be covered somewhere. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Cited and discussed beyond a single paper: [1]. And Karel Arnaut; Martha Sif Karrebæk; Massimiliano Spotti; Jan Blommaert (24 November 2016). Engaging Superdiversity: Recombining Spaces, Times and Language Practices. Channel View Publications. pp. 1979–. ISBN 978-1-78309-681-7.. The nominator doesn't seem to have looked even at the first google results (the cited book makes it clear this is notable, and it is the FIRST hit in Google books for that term). WP:TROUT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst I share the nom's disdain for needless superlatives, superdiversity has become a notable topic in sociolinguistics different from diversity. A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows many reliable sources in GBooks and GScholar. Here is a chapter on the topic in a Routledge handbook that serves as a good review: Budach, Gabriele; Saint-Georges, Ingrid de (2017). Superdiversity and language. Routledge Handbooks Online. p. Chapter 3. ISBN 9781138801981.. --Mark viking (talk) 09:12, 16 October 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.