Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statecraft (political science)


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit  11:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Statecraft (political science)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is not a notable concept in the sense that it's used in the article. The most common way of using the term is a notable concept (e.g. ) but the concept in the article is primarily linked to one scholar and its meaning seems rather mundane (it's just coalition maintenance). It's also confusing and misleading to readers to state that this is the political science version of "statecraft" when the actual political science version of statecraft means something entirely different (something closer to grand strategy and diplomacy). If there's any content worth keeping, it can be merged with Jim Bulpitt. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2022 (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.