Deletion of Decoloniality

Comment: WP:TNT is merely an essay and I fail to see how it is applicable.  is a guideline, and  is policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:FIXIT||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: Several people above have cited , which is an important policy. So, let's look at what it says. "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary sources, such as books and papers, say ''about'' the term or concept, not books and papers ''that use'' the term. ... Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. ... when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." The key point being made (which really just comes back to  and ) is that we need reliable secondary sources "such as books and papers" that are ''about'' the term before it can be covered. I count 14 academic papers above that are about the term, and more are already given in the article. As  says, "when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic". Those secondary sources are available and given
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:V||WP:GNG)

Comment: per . I have concerns that this article :Template:Neologism|documents a neologism in such a manner as to promote it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Objections to the style of the article in its current form are irrelevant. The article has citations (even if they're not formatted correctly) and, thus, passes under . I am curious as to why Chiswick Chap feels this is "a new and apparently made-up term" when citations are given, or indeed why Carrite calls this a neologism? A quick Google search shows that is not the case, so I am surprised to see such opinions expressed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There are multiple academic papers on this subject going back to 2007. How does it fit ? How many academic papers are needed before you don't consider it so?  says, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Those have been provided
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: per . Looks like someone's college thesis. '''Erpert
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTESSAY)

Comment: as nothing like a Wikipedia article, falling entirely foul of , introducing a new and apparently made-up term, and arguing for it in a tendentiously written 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:ESSAY)

Comment: if subject is deemed to be appropriate, then  it. If not, then just plain get rid of it. Reasons per above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)