Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca L. Schiff


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Rebecca L. Schiff

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:PROF or AUTHOR. One book only, in about 100 libraries, which is not very substantial for the topic. The re are two papers with cites over 100, but the total output is not substantial. Position is only adjunct professor,which is not a permanent full time position, let alone a tenure track position. I do not see how we can consider her a notable scholar when no research university has thought her enough of a scholar for a full time appointment.

Nor do I see that she is notable as a fundraiser--there is no information about her actual function and accomplishments. The accumultion of miscellaneous information here shows this for its true nature: a promotional biography,  DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note - I agree the BLP subject is not notable. I do however wonder whether "concordance theory" or the book Schiff, R. L. (2009). The Military and Domestic Politics: A Concordance Theory of Civil-Military Relations. New York, NY: Routledge which has been reviewd and is cited, are notable - it's not clearcut to me that they are, but it does seem close to being notable at the very least.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, but trivial. Reads like a PR release and really does not discuss her book or "theories" therein, only that the book is "timely" and goes are to very briefly and generally discuss "Concordance theory". Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak delete as WP:Too soon. There are GS citations to her book not not as many as might be expected for a controversial topic. The BLP reads like a PR release. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2018 (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.

Concordance Theory

After observing that most civil-military theory assumes that the civilian and military worlds must necessarily be separate, both physically and ideologically, Rebecca L. Schiff offered a new theory—Concordance—as an alternative.[91][92] One of the key questions in Civil-Military Relations (CMR) theory has always been to determine under what conditions the military will intervene in the domestic politics of the nation. Most scholars agree with the theory of objective civilian control of the military (Huntington), which focuses on the separation of civil and military institutions. Such a view concentrates and relies heavily on the U.S. case, from an institutional perspective, and especially during the Cold Warperiod. Schiff provides an alternative theory, from both institutional and cultural perspectives, that explains the U.S. case as well as several non-U.S. civil-military relations case studies.

While concordance theory does not preclude a separation between the civilian and military worlds, it does not require such a state to exist. She argues that three societal institutions—(1) the military, (2) political elites, and (3) the citizenry must aim for a cooperative arrangement and some agreement on four primary indicators:

Social composition of the officer corps.The political decision-making process.The method of recruiting military personnel.The style of the military.

If agreement occurs among the three partners with respect to the four indicators, domestic military intervention is less likely to occur. In her book, The Military and Domestic Politics, she applied her theory to six international historical cases studies: U.S., post–Second World War period; American Post-Revolutionary Period (1790–1800); Israel (1980–90); Argentina (1945–55); India post-Independence and 1980s; Pakistan (1958–69).