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. Obviously notable, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Legoktm (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL)

[edit]

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

Basically a manifesto, not an encyclopedic article. Not G11 worthy, but is not WP:NPOV either. Legoktm (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page is describing a group of politically active scholars. Some of those scholars have written manifestos and articles describing what is TWAIL. This page is not a manifesto itself. But it does describe some of those manifestos and political points of view. The way that the page is written does not endorse that perspective. It is encyclopedic because it is descriptive in style, highlights debates within TWAIL, is very well referenced, provides a history of TWAIL, has a decent number of external links, and outlines criticisms against TWAIL. Superzhango 00:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superzhango (talk • contribs)

Keep - I disagree with Legoktm: there is a TWAIL manifesto that has been written by Professor Bhupinder Chimni (and cited by the authors of the page) which possesses a far more polemical tone. What Legoktm appears concerned with is the substance of the method / movement - a critical perspective on the body and practice of international law - than the tone of the page. In addition to explicating the movement's origins and development, the author identifies criticisms, participants and external links that provide greater insight in the breadth of the movement. The content is verifiable, as per the impressive bank of footnotes and bibliographical references 174.91.227.12 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.227.12 (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Question is whether TWAIL is notable. Considering there was a conference at the University of Oregon Law School just on TWAIL, [1], it is notable. A search on Google scholar for TWAIL returns many hits. If the current article reads like a manifesto (which I don't think it does, but that is a content debate), we should edit and fix the problems, not delete it. Churn and change (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, but move to Third World Approaches to International Law, which is currently a redirect. The article doesn't need to be disambiguated. Significant coverage by reliable secondary sources: International Law and the Third World published by Psychology Press, International Law from Below published by Cambridge University Press, International Law as Social Construct published by Oxford University Press, New Approaches to International Law published by Springer, The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations published by Oxford University Press. Meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 17:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Strongly disapprove the move or redirect to 'international legal theories.' This is a separate page warranting separate discussion. There are hundreds of separate pages for particular models of football boots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Mercurial_Vapor), for crying out loud, and someone has the audacity to challenge a legitimate intellectual movement. Come on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.175.83 (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2012 (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.