Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nesting (international relations)

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 23:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nesting (international relations)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I don't dispute that the concept may have been used by some scholars, it is not a notable concept in International Relations scholarship. The concept is so obscure that I'm not sure it's even used in any of the main articles for theories related to the concept. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the page was created by a sockpuppet. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well it certainly looks as if this is non-notable and should be deleted; the 4 sources seem to be minor passing mentions, and two of them are supplied without even a page number. Not clear what the sock was up to here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.