Deletion of Sexual Morality and the Law (2nd nomination)

Comment: Fails , notwithstanding the unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary above. A glance at the references is enough to make this clear: three works by Foucault, and one interview with him. That is, no sources independent from the article's subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: with heavy trimming) to Michel Foucault per . This is significant enough for Wikipedia to cover, though it may not need its own article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: I have to agree, this page appears to fail . I think it would be best to merge with the main article on Foucault
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I am a little surprised to see all the keep !votes here. I mean, seriously? How does this article pass ? The entire article is an original commentary on that interview. The article appears to have created an illusion of four distinct references; but, in reality it has only two. One is the transcription of that interview and the other is a book written by Foucault himself, none of which are secondary sources. The real question is not about censorship. It is about whether the topic is notable enough to warrant a separate Wikipedia entry or not, based on an analysis of the secondary sources that discusses the topic. That is not the case here. I even did a thorough search on Google to see if there were any other sources that covered the topic at length. Nothing significant comes up. A clear GNG fail
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)