Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green theory


 * 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Green theory

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is no "Green theory" subfield in International Relations. As far as I can tell, the entire article is based on one textbook chapter where an author uses "green theory" as a term for any research related to the environment in International Relations. While environment and environmentalism are indeed studied by IR scholars, there is no "green theory" of IR Theory. The body of the article is an enormous essay where all kinds of non-"green theory" scholarship is characterized as being "green theory". While green politics exists and "green political theory" might exist, there is no "green theory of International Relations." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is obviously a student's essay that's entirely original research. The entirely unencyclopedic tone throughout, owing in part to the frequent of the use of first person "we" and the synthethic "seems", make this unsalvageable. Reywas92Talk 03:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a textbook or place to workshop your International Relations 101 essay. KidAd  •  SPEAK  22:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 20:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and because most of this article is incomprehensible. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I struck part of my rationale because of the cogent arguments given below. This is a classic TNT case where a useful article could be written, but nobody should first have to try to salvage anything from the attempts that have been made so far. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. -Roxy the sometimes happy dog . wooF 08:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I actually think this particular article needs a WP:TNT level of cleanup, and deleting it outright wouldn't be a huge loss: that being said, a very quick Google Scholar search brings up more than enough sources showing this is clearly a notable topic, see for instance this chapter written by the head of political science at Melbourne Uni and published by Oxford; perhaps this is the one mentioned by the nom, but there's plenty of scholarly works available over multiple countries and textbooks. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. In addition to the chapter "Green Theory" in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity above, there are plenty of other sources. For instance, extensive chapters in:
 * By following the references in these works you'll find plenty more. I happen to know IR theory well. The situation with Green Theory could be summarized that it definitely exists, but exists in the margins of even non-mainstream IR theory. In IR, many non-mainstream and even mainstream theories are employed in the sense presented in the nomination: they focus on the study of a particular phenomenon rather than are organized by a common methodology or a "theory" in a stricter sense. But that's simply a feature of the discipline. Many of these Green Theory pieces focus on the question: what exactly is Green Theory, in other words typical metatheoretical discussions of IR. If the article is deleted on TNT grounds, it should be noted that the topic itself is notable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By following the references in these works you'll find plenty more. I happen to know IR theory well. The situation with Green Theory could be summarized that it definitely exists, but exists in the margins of even non-mainstream IR theory. In IR, many non-mainstream and even mainstream theories are employed in the sense presented in the nomination: they focus on the study of a particular phenomenon rather than are organized by a common methodology or a "theory" in a stricter sense. But that's simply a feature of the discipline. Many of these Green Theory pieces focus on the question: what exactly is Green Theory, in other words typical metatheoretical discussions of IR. If the article is deleted on TNT grounds, it should be noted that the topic itself is notable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By following the references in these works you'll find plenty more. I happen to know IR theory well. The situation with Green Theory could be summarized that it definitely exists, but exists in the margins of even non-mainstream IR theory. In IR, many non-mainstream and even mainstream theories are employed in the sense presented in the nomination: they focus on the study of a particular phenomenon rather than are organized by a common methodology or a "theory" in a stricter sense. But that's simply a feature of the discipline. Many of these Green Theory pieces focus on the question: what exactly is Green Theory, in other words typical metatheoretical discussions of IR. If the article is deleted on TNT grounds, it should be noted that the topic itself is notable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By following the references in these works you'll find plenty more. I happen to know IR theory well. The situation with Green Theory could be summarized that it definitely exists, but exists in the margins of even non-mainstream IR theory. In IR, many non-mainstream and even mainstream theories are employed in the sense presented in the nomination: they focus on the study of a particular phenomenon rather than are organized by a common methodology or a "theory" in a stricter sense. But that's simply a feature of the discipline. Many of these Green Theory pieces focus on the question: what exactly is Green Theory, in other words typical metatheoretical discussions of IR. If the article is deleted on TNT grounds, it should be noted that the topic itself is notable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By following the references in these works you'll find plenty more. I happen to know IR theory well. The situation with Green Theory could be summarized that it definitely exists, but exists in the margins of even non-mainstream IR theory. In IR, many non-mainstream and even mainstream theories are employed in the sense presented in the nomination: they focus on the study of a particular phenomenon rather than are organized by a common methodology or a "theory" in a stricter sense. But that's simply a feature of the discipline. Many of these Green Theory pieces focus on the question: what exactly is Green Theory, in other words typical metatheoretical discussions of IR. If the article is deleted on TNT grounds, it should be noted that the topic itself is notable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. As Finnusertop points out, green theory is an established fringe perspective in international relations theory. The article ought to reflect that, rather than presenting it as a mainstream 'sub-field of international relations theory' — but this is a concept discussed under that title in IR, albeit quite an esoteric one. It is not merely "a term for any research related to the environment in International Relations" (and we don't delete articles for being badly-written at the point of nomination). Kilopylae (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.