Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neomilitarism


 * 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. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Neomilitarism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologisms have no place in wikipedia. The entire concept is drawn from the book The Collapse of Fortress Bush by Alasdair Roberts. This will be a valid topic if the term receives significant coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete per nom. I can't even find sources discussing the book. Carewolf (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as un-notable neologism. lk (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: neologism. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SOAPBOX and nn neologism (hey, both terms start with "neo," how about that?) MuZemike (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Ledred.png|20px]] Delete - it's a neologism. RockManQ (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just checked scholar.google.com and JSTOR and there are references to the use of this term back to early 1960s -- will revise tomorrow. Ebenezer27 (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Revisions added; to meet the original concern, there is significant coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources over a span of four decades; an older usage pertaining to Latin America and a newer usage by multiple authors pertaining to post-2000. This can be validated by doing a search on Google or scholar.google or by looking at JSTOR or other academic databases, and NYT historic database Ebenezer27 (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the term has evidently passed both notability and non-neologism criteria now. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am still sceptical. While the term has been used by multiple sources now, it looks like each use is unrelated to the former, so every author is using the term as a neologism. So just because neomilitarism now covers 5 different neologisms, doesn't make it more notable. Carewolf (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Neologisms must be "words and terms that have recently been coined". This is not the case here.  Clearly the term has been used in two contexts for some time.  The uses are related.  In both contexts they refer to significant shifts in military-state relations; one cluster is concerned with the shifting role of the military in Latin America; and the other cluster is concerned with the shifting role of the US military in recent history, particularly post-2001. On notability: the coverage is significant and the sources reliable. We can add others if it's a matter of count.  On the question of whether every author "is using the term as a neologism": Do we have to prove that each author had knowledge of earlier usages, and intended to refer to those earlier usages?  Practically speaking, how do we do that? Ebenezer27 (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC) — Ebenezer27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I closed this as delete earlier, but at the request of Ebenezer27, I am reopening the discussion as the article was amended during the debate. I am going to relist this to today's AFD and notify the above contributors. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable neologism. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. I couldn't find any reliable sources on this.--Banime (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be some confusion above. Per WP:DICDEF, our articles should be about topics not words .  So what is the topic that we are considering here?  If there are different usages of the word neomilitarism then these would be different topics and we need to know which we are talking about.  Note that the issue of neologism is irelevant since, per WP:NEO that is purely a matter of style and clarity - ensuring that our readership understands the words we use.  If the title is obscure then we can replace it with another word or phrase which describes the topic more clearly.  But we need to be sure what that topic is.  Colonel Warden (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.