Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cratology


 * 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 delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Cratology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This term is quite idiosyncratic. The website Cratology – the art and science of social power seems to be the only place it is used, and this seems to be written by Jeffrey Pfeffer. The term may have had some use in Russian, but this isn't made clear. The cited article by Merquior - Foucault's 'cratology': his theory of power doesn't really explore the term. I think it's a bit like ergatocracy, a term that Cedar and Eden Paul attempted to introduce in the 1920's and that it doesn't warrant a page. Perhaps they both deserve a section in a more general page. Leutha (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This discussion page was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time.  --Finngall talk  15:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
 * Delete stub for a neologism that shows no significant improvement since 2004. Only one source that does nto actually discuss or even define the term.  The study of social power is not a new academic field, as the stub article claims; it is political science and sociology.  No chance of passing GNG and no likelihood of WP:ATD being useful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Appears to be a WP:NEOLOGISM that did not attain widespread use, and thus does not have the sources sufficient to pass the WP:GNG.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research. We're not here to publicize a "new science". Bearian (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I've nothing to add beyond what others have already said. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.