Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contextual political analysis

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual political analysis

[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)

AFD as the article has been draftified before and PROD can be contested. The subject of the article is a concept. The concept itself is well covered in the book, but there are not enough independent sources that refer to this concept. The references include Max Weber's Political Thought, but it is not clear whether the concept of "contextual political analysis" is presented there as well or not.

In short, the concept is not notable enough. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. I think contextual political analysis is probably a notable enough concept/approach to merit an article in theory, although I think it would be a tricky one to write. But this is clearly an AI-generated essay that would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to be encyclopedic. MCE89 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2025 (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.