Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberalism in international relations 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   delete. No prejudice against fresh start. v/r - TP 16:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Liberalism in international relations theory

 * – ( View AfD View log )

If the copyvio tag is correct, and I believe that it is, than that means that this entire article is tainted, since the copyvio came over in the very first edit, and has been a part of all subsequent edits. This needs to be deleted and started over with fresh prose and a fresh page history.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  16:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As a Ph.D. student in international relations, we absolutely need to have an article on liberal IR theory. And, frankly, it needs to be a lot better than what currently exists.  Replacing the entire article with a stub is fine, so long as it isn't entirely deleted.&mdash;Perceval 19:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you prepare a stub from scratch in a subpage and then move it over after the article gets deleted. I recognize that there's a need for there to be an article under this name, it's just that every single edit to the current article is built upon a foundation of copyvio, therefore, sadly, every single edit in this current incantation of the article has to be deleted. If you're a Ph.D. candidate in the area, this should be a piece of cake for you to at the very least, create a stub with comparable coverage. Sadly, at approximately two undergraduate courses in the area, I know just enough IR theory to know that I'd botch trying to do it myself.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh gosh. The implication just hit me; you branched this off from another article. That one needs to be checked too, because if you took the text straight over, it's probably also got some tainted test.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I created this article years ago by moving text out of the catch-all international relations theory article. I can make some stub text for liberalism article if needs be.&mdash;Perceval 20:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - This article is bad; if there are copy vio concerns, let's just userfy the reading list and blow the fucker up and start over. Probably an encyclopedic topic although I'm not enough of a poli sci guy to say for sure. Start her again, Percevall... Carrite (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete International relations theory seems quite weak. The competing schools such as liberalism are best covered in the main article so that the differences between them may be understood and we don't get POV forking.  The copyright issue means that it would be best to delete altogether. Warden (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Colonel is a wise man, probably good advice. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There shouldn't be a concern about POV forking. Within IR theory there are 4-6 broadly recognized schools of thought with long traditions and well-developed literatures.  Realism, liberalism, Marxism, English School, Constructivism, and various Critical Theory positions (post-colonialism, feminism, post-structuralism) can all easily sustain independent articles.  All these articles, including the overview article on international relations theory, should be better.  This article should probably be replaced with a stub, but not deleted outright.&mdash;Perceval 19:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Copy-vio taints are best dealt with by the Hemingway solution. I am not a big fan of academic style article on Wiki in any event - I prefer bread and butter core topics rather than articles like "feminist influences on the post modern movement".  Just saying. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:20, 12 December 2011 (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.