Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recalcitrant Interdependence


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Recalcitrant Interdependence

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Does not meet the General Notability Guidelines; No secondary sources exist for this "theory". Achowat (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Basically a rehash of somebody's non-notable PhD thesis. The term finds absolutely no use at Google Scholar, and nothing but this article at Google News. Written by a special purpose account. If this article is deleted, somebody needs to follow the SPA editor's contributions, to find and remove all the other places in Wikipedia where he promoted his non-notable theory. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to self: Complex interdependence, The End of History and the Last Man, The Clash of Civilizations, Asian values, Democratic peace theory. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. possible WP:OR. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, per MelanieN. I did also find some of the articles / books cited in the article - none use this term at all. (See NY Times, Wash Post & Keohane book).  Nik the  stoned  11:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears as though the independent sources are all used to cite theories and principles mentioned in practice. None actually mention Recalcitrant Interdependence (though, fittingly, the article doesn't claim that it does). Achowat (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2012 (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.