Deletion of Linguistics (poststructural)

Comment: based on http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=post.structural.linguistics google scholar there might be enough for a |fringe topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linguistics_(poststructural)&oldid=232732427 Right now the page is a bit better after I removed several chunks of |content forks, but there's still very little evidence of interest beyond the 70s. This AFD is being approached like a |battle when it's a matter of the sources not indicating notability. There's space on wikipedia for even minority positions, but they must be sourced. This is not. If there are sources to demonstrate interest in the page, it should be obvious to demonstrate contemporary interest. Discussion should also focus on the deletion of the page; discussion of the page's contents should be on that talk page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:CFORK||WP:BATTLE)

Comment: per Supriya. There is plenty of published work in reliable sources. As for the nominator, whether you think that post-structuralist approaches to linguistics are actually linguistics is completely irrelevant - what matters is that there are specific post-structuralist approaches to language and linguistics, and that the existence of these is |verified in |reliable sources. If 'proper' linguists have decried it as not linguistics, find some sources and add that to the article. As it stands, the deletion rationale is an essay
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)