Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Politics of Uncertainty

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 merge‎ to Andy Stirling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Politics of Uncertainty[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)

I don't see much for this article being a standalone one. Can a redirect work here? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The book seemingly has reception, but that section is horribly written. I can't make out what "For ^[10] this volume illuminates" is supposed to mean. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Andy Stirling, the co-editor, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion. Although the book is cited in numerous articles and books, I did not find book reviews or other significant coverage of the book in my searches for sources. The book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this input. I tried to improve the obscure paragraph noted by User:Geschichte. Other than that I regret that I have not much to add to what written in the talk page. The book is well cited as you note, and its presence on the pages of Wikipedia may encourage others to join the discussion on this important topic. Best! Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as suggested by Cunard. I was able to access several of the citations in the "reception" section, but they are simple citations of the work, not reviews or a particular indication of lasting influence.
- The first sentence, For[10] this volume illuminates how governments and private actors... is citing an article on the same topic, which says of this book nothing more than: STS scholars also argue that many governmental and organisational bodies (e.g. insurance) that attempt to deal with non-knowledge formulate uncertainty as risk and so, by rendering non-knowledge into calculable risk, reduce the world in particular ways that favour managerialism and de-emphasise other ways of knowing and living (Scoones & Stirling, 2020).
- The second footnote in reception is a podcast, non-RS
- The third footnote in reception, attached to the statement The book is cited in debates about sustainability transition and transformation refers to this sentence and footnote: Hence, the issue sometimes is not around changing policy for the better but instead fighting a malignant transformation [1], footnoting [1] At this juncture, we argue that it is important to embrace the inherent uncertainty in transformations and answer the questions put forth by Scoones and Stirling (2020) clearly before branding any transformation as benign or malign: ‘What methods, processes and mobilizations can tilt the balance towards more positive outcomes?'
- The fourth footnote in reception has nothing in the source other than what's currently quoted in the article.

It's not nothing, but it's also not really enough coverage to write an effective article from. I don't think any of these sources actually provide information for a reception section -- they are just very brief summaries of the main points of the book. This is the sort of book that ought to be able to get two reviews. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect: This is usually the case. I support that. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Andy Stirling, per Cunard and LEvalyn, as a viable ATD. Sal2100 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2024 (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.