Deletion of Dominant group (art)

Comment: clearly 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: for essentially the same reason I said to delete Dominant group (Moon); the author is attempting to interpret the phrase as used in a variety of contexts, and does not even give a clear exposition of the |synthesis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: Clear case of  if there ever was one. I also agree with DGG that the proliferation of cookie-cutter articles after the original was deleted as failing Wikipedia  policies is troublesome. Special:Contributions/86.104.57.135|86.104.57.135
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR)

Comment: By way of preface, my personal opinion is that identity politics has been the centre of the moral universe in the humanities department for the past forty-odd years or so, and the result has been an indigestible mass of turgid prose from armchair revolutionaries trying to out-transgress one another, serene in their conviction that their incomprehensible screeds are striking mighty blows against the hegemonic patriarchy that ignores them.  The editor who's able to wade through that stuff and provide a readable synopsis in |plain English would be doing a favor to not only the encyclopedia but to the human race.'''But''', the current article reads like a quote-farm from these texts.  This raises not only |unencyclopedic issues but also |originality issues.  I think a successful article will have to at minimum provide an original synopsis of all of these points of view, and not let the sources speak for themselves.  They '''can't''' speak for themselves; they just aren't able any more
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:UPE||WP:NOT||WP:COPYVIO)