Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-modern constructivism

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 delete. Could be created as a redirect if a knowledgeable editor thinks it is a likely search term. RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-modern constructivism

[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)

This stub serves no purpose. It's basically a micro-version of Constructivism (international relations). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete. Athel cb (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep', Constructivism as a whole can't be perceived as powerful enough to be able to subsume all the categories of constructivism. For example social constructionism. There are more categories which demand for inclusion as standalone pages like the topic realist constructivism. From notability perspective, it has been widely discussed and the article should be enlengthen to do a justice to the topic. Chirota (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chiro725, this is not an offshoot of constructivism (broadly speaking). It's an offshoot of constructivism (international relations) which is already an offshoot of the broad constructivism category. Why can this one sentence not just be included in Constructivism (international relations) (where "post-modern constructivism" is already covered at greater length and depth than this stub)? The presence of these kinds of stubs make attempts to edit content incredibly hard, because the effort has to be duplicated across all the stubs, as well as the big main article. The impact that these stubs have is that the stubs remain unreadable (this one has barely been edited in 10 years) and the big main article remains poorly edited because readers and editors can't make sense of all the offshoots and duplicate versions that are out there. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or possibly redirect if this is a plausible search term. Mccapra (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or redirect to constructivism disambiguation page. Neutrality^talk 17:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above explanations. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:08, 19 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.