Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic realism


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  13:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Strategic realism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This stub serves no purpose. This is not a prominent school of realism. If it were, it could be succinctly covered on the Realism (international relations) page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * del no significant coverage. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Realism (international relations). This is a plausible search term, but can be adequately addressed within the general article on realism. I have reviewed the comments below from North America and Cunard, including the citations, but nothing suggests that this needs a standalone article. Just because a term is used in a variety of sources does not mean that an independent article is needed. That is especially true in cases like this one - "strategic realism" is simply not a well-defined school of thought independent of "realism." The unnecessary atomization of content is generally a barrier to high-quality articles. Neutralitytalk 18:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete there's nothing there. The two words have been used consecutively in a few papers, but that doesn't make it a concept. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 01:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Realism (international relations) or keep. Actually, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources in book and scholarly sources:
 * (Abstract).
 * – Quote: "I argue that this conception of the scope of strategy is flawed and I offer a comprehensive rebuttal by working out the logic of the theories advanced by Carl von Clausewitz and Thomas Schelling."
 * (snippet view)
 * – Another notion is to retain the article and expand it to demonstrate the topic's significance, based upon what reliable sources state about the topic. North America1000 13:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * – Quote: "I argue that this conception of the scope of strategy is flawed and I offer a comprehensive rebuttal by working out the logic of the theories advanced by Carl von Clausewitz and Thomas Schelling."
 * (snippet view)
 * – Another notion is to retain the article and expand it to demonstrate the topic's significance, based upon what reliable sources state about the topic. North America1000 13:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * – Another notion is to retain the article and expand it to demonstrate the topic's significance, based upon what reliable sources state about the topic. North America1000 13:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a plethora of number of realisms that have at various points been mentioned by various people. It is impossible to write a proper Realism (international relations) article if every single new variant gets its own article. Most of the sources you list are low quality (fringe journals and fringe publishers), which do not lend support for this being a noteworthy concept within realism or within IR. 14:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs)


 * I wholly disagree with your notions about the reliability of the sources I provided, whereby you stated "Most of the sources you list are low quality (fringe journals and fringe publishers),". On the contrary, the sources are quite reliable (underline emphasis mine below):
 * Oxford University Press – " the largest university press in the world, and the second oldest after Cambridge University Press. It is a department of the University of Oxford and is governed by a group of 15 academics appointed by the vice-chancellor known as the delegates of the press."
 * Vikas Publishing House – "a leading name in higher education publishing, specializes in the publication of academic and reference books in the areas of engineering, management, computer science, education and humanities. Titles from Vikas are recommended in top business schools, technical universities, engineering colleges, as well as in undergraduate and postgraduate courses all over India ."
 * Pearson plc – the world's "largest education company and was once the largest book publisher in the world.
 * Journal of Strategic Studies – "a peer-reviewed academic journal covering military and diplomatic strategic studies". It is published by Routledge, which "specialises in providing academic books, journals and online resources in the fields of humanities, behavioural science, education, law, and social science" and is "claimed to be the largest global academic publisher within humanities and social sciences".
 * First Global South International Studies Conference – Partner Institutions include 1) "The International Studies Association (headquartered at the University of Arizona, USA) is the largest, most respected and widely known scholarly association promoting research and education in International Relations (IR)", 2) The Global South Caucus, a unit of the International Studies Association, 3) Sciences Po Paris – Campus Moyen-Orient Méditerranée à Menton: "Sciences Po is a highly selective independent and international research university with seven campuses and collaborative arrangements with more than 400 competitive universities all over the world".
 * Ferozsons – "a Pakistani publishing company in Lahore, Pakistan. Established in 1894, it is Pakistan’s oldest publishing house ."
 * – Sorry, but I feel that you are quite mistaken. These are certainly not "fringe" journals and publishers, nor are they "low quality", not even in the slightest. North America1000 14:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OUP, Pearsons and JSS are clearly reliable sources. The other ones are fringe. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You haven't qualified your assertions, though, only providing proof by assertion. Merriam-Webster defines "fringe" as "a group with marginal or extremist views" (link). How on earth is Ferozsons, Pakistan's oldest publishing house, a group that is somehow "marginal or extremist"? Have you researched this company? They may not be the largest publisher in the world, but that does not automatically make them a "fringe" publisher. Regarading the International Studies Association, it is "a professional association for scholars, practitioners and graduate students in the field of international studies. Founded in 1959, ISA now has over 7,000 members in 110 countries and is the most respected and widely known scholarly association in this field". This is certainly not marginal or extremist. Rather it is the opposite of marginal, and furthermore, they publish several peer-reviewed academic journals, such as Journal of Strategic Studies listed above, as well as International Studies Quarterly, International Studies Review and International Political Sociology, among others. This is the opposite of "extremist", this is an organization that publishes and presents accurate, quality studies that are further verified and confirmed via the peer review process. Nope, not marginal, and not extremist: this is not fringe. North America1000 16:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:NOTDICT. KidAd  •  SPEAK  18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDICT explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry..." and then goes in detail how to tell the difference. The page in question is clearly a stub, not a dictionary entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for engagement with Northamerica1000's provided sources.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Note I have unclosed and relisted this following a discussion on my talk page. Therefore, I think this should be allowed to run for two more weeks (if necessary, obviously), even if that puts us past the typical length of an AfD. Also, an addendum to my relisting note; there is a serious argument above that a single article about Realism (international relations) is preferable to many short pieces about its varieties; I have no opinion on this question, but this can be a persuasive argument when coverage is sparse, and so I would hope to see engagement with this question as well. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per the good evidence detailed by Northamerica1000 above and per our policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Here are three sources Northamerica1000 provided along with quotes from the sources that demonstrate that the sources discuss strategic realism in substantial detail:  The book notes: "In this section, we shall examine strategic realism, which is exemplified by the thought of Thomas Schelling (1980, 1996). ... Strategic realism focuses centrally on foreign-policy decision making. When state leaders confront basic diplomatic and military issues, they are obliged to think strategically—i.e., instrumentally—if they hope to be successful. ... This is a good example of strategic realism which basically concerns how to employ power intelligently in order to get our military adversary to do what we desire and, more importantly, to avoid doing what we fear. According to strategic realism, 'choosing between extremes' is foolish and reckless and is thus ... ... Strategic realism thus presupposes values and carries normative implications. Unlike classical realism, however, it does not examine them or explore them. ..."  The book has a six-paragraph section titled "Thomas Schelling: Strategic Realism". The book notes: "Strategic realism, like neo-realism, is a product of the behavioural revolution of the 1950s and 1960s. Many contemporary realists seek to provide an empirical analysis of world politics. But they avoid normative analysis of international politics because that is considered subject, and thus, unscientific. Strategic realism is associated with the name of Thomas Schelling who propagated his views in 1980. Schelling's strategic realism focuses its attention on foreign policy-decision making. ... Strategic realists are basically concerned with how to employ power intelligently in order to get the adversary to do what we desire and, more importantly, to avoid doing what we fear."  The book notes: "Thomas Schelling, for example, came up with a newer version of realism, later identified as strategic realism. This could be considered as a part of neo-realism, which wanted to [explanation] ... Keeping the normative aspects of earlier forms of realism in the background, strategic realism tends to emphasize on empirical analytical tools for strategic thoughts. Thomas Schelling, the chief exponent of strategic realism, is well aware about the crisis-ridden contemporary world. ... While the focal point of strategic realism is the art of diplomacy and prudent strategies, neo-realism is more concerned with [explanation]. ... Schelling's strategic realism has come under attack from constructivists. No strategy, however prudent, can be free from normative values." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow strategic realism to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC) 
 * Regarding a merge to Realism (international relations), I think there is enough coverage for a standalone article about strategic realism though I do not have a strong opinion about the matter. Cunard (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the concept "Strategic realism" stems from the prominent textbook "Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches" by Sorensen and Jackson, which uses the term as a catch-all for realist theories that rely on rationalism and strategic interactions (they use Thomas Schelling's works as an example) and as a contrast to Classical realism theories that are not strategic. While this book is clearly a RS, the concept is linked near-exclusively to this book and the two authors. The other two books that you cite are not high-quality publications, and I strongly suspect that the authors (who are not prominent or well-published scholars in the field) are regurgitating what the Oxford University Press textbook says. I did a search for the concept in top journals in the field of international relations and found nothing! Isn't it absurd to have a Wikipedia article for some kind of "school of realism" that no international relations scholars of note or publications of note believe exists (outside of the formulation of one Oxford University Press textbook)? If a prominent textbook coins a term, which no other prominent scholars adopt, but a bunch of low-quality publications and non-notable scholars regurgitate – does that mean that the term reaches a notability threshold? The term "Strategic realism" is not mentioned at any point in Thomas Schelling's Wikipedia article nor in the Realism Wikipedia article (nor should the concept be mentioned in those articles), which just demonstrates how absurd this entire discussion is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear to the closer of this discussion: What we have here is a concept that was 1. coined in a prominent textbook, 2. regurgitated by low-quality publications, and 3. never adopted by the relevant scholarly community (as demonstrated by a search in the top journals). Does every single concept that has been coined by a prominent publication and repeated by three low-quality publications deserve its own Wikipedia page? For example, there are vastly more prominent citations for the terms "Soft Realism", "Hard Realism", "Rationalist realism" etc. than "Strategic Realism" – should every single variant and type of realism be given its own Wikipedia page? I don't think the editors above realize what a disservice it does to those of us who are busting our asses trying to improve these pages when there are a trillion pointless forks that divide and complicate all the effort, and when all the effort is diluted by the presence of misleading and deceptive pages that fool students and other interested people into thinking "Strategic realism" is a major school of international relations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't consider Vikas Publishing, Longman, and Aneek Chatterjee to be low-quality sources. They are reliable sources that contain their own analyses of strategic realism. That strategic realism was covered by these reliable sources means the subject passes Notability. That strategic realism was not covered by the top journals in the field does not mean it does not pass Notability when other reliable sources cover it. Cunard (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So is the logic then that we should also create a "Hard realism", "Soft realism", "Rationalist realism", "First image realism", "Second image realism" etc article for each and every variant that has been mentioned in three sources? All these terms have been mentioned in at least a half-dozen sources. Why create a new article for each variant when there is a perfectly good Realism (international relations) article that could incorporate the variants and describe the differences? Is the goal to create a dictionary or is it create coherent sets of articles? 00:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs)
 * Regarding "Hard realism", "Soft realism", "Rationalist realism", "First image realism", "Second image realism": Each type of realism that has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources passes Notability so should be discussed on Wikipedia. Whether a type of realism should be discussed in a separate article or in Realism (international relations) is a matter of editorial judgment. I do not have a strong opinion on either approach. You wrote above (bolding added by me for emphasis), "The term 'Strategic realism' is not mentioned at any point in Thomas Schelling's Wikipedia article nor in the Realism Wikipedia article (nor should the concept be mentioned in those articles)". If strategic realism should not be mentioned in Realism (international relations) because it would be undue weight, then the only option I support is a standalone article since the topic passes Notability. If there is consensus that discussing strategic realism in Realism (international relations) would not be undue weight, then I would be fine with that approach. Cunard (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The concept should not be mentioned in Realism (international relations) because it is simply not a notable concept in Realist scholarship. It's a concept coined by one textbook that has been regurgitated by several low-quality publications. Which makes it all the more absurd that it has its own Wikipedia article. If no scholars of note or publications of note believe this thing exists, why should Wikipedia mislead and deceive students and interested readers into thinking it's a prominent school of realism? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Northamerica1000 and Cunard. Clearly meets WP:GNG per the sources presented here. In the face of the evidence provided, those still arguing delete are WP:IDON'TLIKEIT arguments.4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 4meter4's claim that all the delete votes amount to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is ridiculous. What the Delete votes have argued is that "Strategic realism" is one of many many many variations of "Realism (international relations)" that have been coined, and that it would be detrimental to readers and editors in this topic area if every single variation of "X Realism" gets its own article. I have provided specific examples of other variations of "X Realism" that have been covered at greater detail in RS than "Strategic realism", yet should obviously not have their own Wikipedia articles. What the Keep votes in this AFD are arguing is that Wikipedia should have countless different "X Realism" articles because a few RS exist can be found that each use a variation of the "X Realism" term. If these editors get their way, it would make it dysfunctional for those of us who are trying to fix content on Realism (international relations) and adjacent articles, a neglected topic area that none of the Delete votes in this AFD have made substantive contributions to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand all of that, and I stand by what I said earlier about it essentially boiling down to an WP:IDON'TLIKEIT argument. Essentially, you are trying to curate the content area for Realism (international relations); which is fine as an editorial exercise but that doesn't fall under AFD's purview or process or purpose. That kind of argument can be used productively in merge discussions where we can discuss how to present and organize materials. At AFD, our scope is to examine content based upon notability guidelines and whether the content warrants inclusion, and ultimately there is clearly enough RS to support a stand alone article on strategic realism. Whether we ultimately choose to house this content somewhere else (such as at Realism (international relations)) is another matter. If your argument is we simply delete it and not address/include it at all, than that just doesn't match with WP:GNG and WP:NOTCENSORED because we have enough evidence that the topic meets our thresh hold for inclusion. I understand that this a minor concept of realism in comparison to others but it does pass GNG. We have lots of articles on notable minor concepts or even fringe theories in many academic fields because of our policy on no censorship. We have enough space on wiki to include articles on any "X Realism" that meet GNG, because that is wikipedia's policy and wikipedia is not censored. 4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The argument that Wikipedia policy forces us to create entire articles for every single variation of a concept that has been mentioned by one reliable source and 2 low-quality sources sounds like an excellent reason to invoke WP:IGNORE. You are arguing that a topic area should be made suboptimal because one textbook coined a term and a few low-quality sources regurgitated the term – if taken to its logical endpoint, it would destroy the topic area due to the prevalence of variations of the same or overlapping concepts. "If your argument is we simply delete it and not address/include it at all, than that just doesn't match with WP:GNG and WP:NOTCENSORED" – Thomas Schelling's work (which the textbook characterizes as "Strategic realism" and which no other scholars/publications of note characterize as such) is covered in the Thomas Schelling, the Bargaining model of war, Rationalism (international relations), Deterrence theory, Coercive diplomacy and Coercion (international relations) articles. Schelling's work is not censored in any way whatsoever – I have literally written the content summarizing his work on those pages. Your call to create a "Strategic realism" article just to define the term violates WP:NOT. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If there is consensus to "keep" the term in some way or another, then I argue that the article should be merged with the Thomas Schelling article in the following way: one short sentence should be added to the Schelling article that says "Schelling's work has been characterized as "strategic realist"". However, my first preference is still to delete the article and not mention the concept on the Schelling page or any other page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC) −
 * (Edit conflict) I am not arguing for creating anything. It's already here. AFD is not concerned with future content but existing content, and WP:Wikipedia is not compulsory. However, you are arguing for the deletion of another editor(s)'s past contribution(s), and that should be taken seriously out of respect for that editor(s)'s work and point of view. If you feel the content is already sufficiently covered elsewhere and is therefore redundant then you should argue it's a WP:CONTENTFORK as a rationale for deletion. However, that is not the argument you made which is why you got the response that I gave you. Further, if that is the argument you want to make, we usually turn such articles into a suitable redirect where readers searching for the concept "strategic realism" can find the appropriate relevant information. Might I suggest that you make that argument and consider a potential redirect target. Perhaps the article on Thomas Schelling?4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In reading the above merge suggestion above, it looks like isn't wanting a merge but just a redirect because Snooganssnoogans wants to suppress the content in this article. Given that multiple independent references from highly respected academic publishers, including Thomas Schelling's own writing, support the content, I can't help but think that Snooganssnoogans has an agenda here that amounts to WP:CENSORSHIP.4meter4 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are so many absurd remarks in your comment: (1) Please provide a citation for your claim that Thomas Schelling ever used the term "Strategic realism" to describe his own scholarship or any scholarship for that matter. You're claiming that I'm trying to censor Schelling's strategic realist scholarship – deliver on your claim. (2) I have added more content to Wikipedia about "strategic realism" (i.e. Rationalist-oriented realism and Schelling's scholarship: Bargaining model of war, Rationalism (international relations), Deterrence theory, Coercive diplomacy and Coercion (international relations)) than all the Keep votes in this AFD combined), which makes the censorship claim even more ridiculous. (3) "Multiple independent references from highly respected academic publishers" is BS. The concept "Strategic realism" was coined by the Sorenson and Jackson textbook and was regurgitated by low-quality sources and scholars who have published nothing of note. (4) Suppress what content? This is literally the entirety of what the Strategic realism article says: "Strategic realism is a theory of international relations associated with Thomas Schelling." Have you even read the article of the AFD that you're commenting on and flinging wild accusations over? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

These are the sources that NorthAmerica1000 has cited for the claim that this is a notable concept and which all the Keep votes are using to justify keeping this article:


 * 1) Jackson and Sørensen (2016). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford University Press.
 * 2) Khanna, V.N. International Relations, 6E. Vikas Publishing House.
 * 3) Aneek, C. (2010). International Relations Today: Concepts and Applications. Pearson.
 * 4) Vennesson, Pascal (February 16, 2017). "Is strategic studies narrow? Critical security and the misunderstood scope of strategy". Journal of Strategic Studies.
 * 5) Chatterjee, Aneek (2012). "Theorizing the Global South in IR: Problems and Prospects*" (PDF). First Global South International Studies Conference. pp. 8–9.
 * 6) Shaukat, S. (2005). US Vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations. Ferozsons.


 * These citations are problematic for the following reasons:


 * 1) Only the Jackson and Sorenson textbook is a clear-cut RS for "Strategic Realism". The rest of the sources (not counting Vennesson) are regurgitating the contents of the Jackson and Sorenson textbook.
 * 2) Two of the citations are to Aneek Chatterjee who has no peer-reviewed publications of note in the field of international relations and who is just regurgitating what the Sorenson and Jackson textbook says in his Pearson textbook. One of the Chatterjee citations is to a non-peer-reviewed conference paper that NorthAmerica100 mistakenly attributes as being an official publication of the International Studies Association.
 * 3) A non-peer reviewed book by V N Khanna, who has no peer-reviewed publications in the field of international relations. There is no mention of this person having a PhD in the field.
 * 4) The Vennesson article is indeed published in a respectable journal (Journal of Strategic Studies) but it doesn't support the claim that "Strategic realism" is a coherent notable concept. Vennesson doesn't describe Schelling's work as being "Strategic realism". Instead, he briefly in the conclusion of the article characterizes Raymond Aron as being a "strategic realist" – the scholarship of Aron and Schelling vastly differed, which bolsters the claim that this is an incoherent concept with no legs in the field. Vennesson uses the term "Strategic realist" in quotation marks, which should raise doubts about its status as a coherent and established school of thought.
 * 5) Sajjad Shaukat is not a recognized expert in the field of international relations. He does not have a PhD and has no peer-reviewed publications. The author is obviously regurgitating what the prominent Sorenson and Jackson textbook says. The book in question is barely legible. I strongly recommend that editors and the closer actually look up the part of the book that covers "Strategic realism". To characterize this as a RS is absurd.
 * 6) In short: the  sources that support the concept of "Strategic realism" are (1) a prominent Oxford University Press textbook that coins the term, (2) a good journal article that uses the term for something different than the textbook, (3) a Pearson textbook by an individual with no peer-reviewed publications of note in the field of international relations that regurgitates what the OUP textbook says, (4) a paper presented by the same individual at a conference, yet not published in a respectable outlet, (5) a non-peer reviewed book by someone with no scholarly publications in the field, and (5) a barely legible book by a non-expert in the field. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.