Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postinternationalism


 * 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   keep. Article now adequately sourced, and nominator has retracted nomination. Favonian (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Postinternationalism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable coined term. Will remain a stub forever.  Nole  lover  21:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Has the nominator not read 'Pondering postinternationalism: a paradigm for the twenty-first century? By Heidi H. Hobbs' or indeed any of the multiple IR texts which refer to this term?     Francium12  22:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is a non-notable neologism. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  19:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What about Postinternationalism and small arms control: theory, politics, security By Damien Rogers It is bizarre so much scholarly attention has been paid to something 'not notable'  Francium12  01:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, add that stuff to the article. :) Right now, the article isn't worth it. RIght now, the article is one sentence; a quote by the guy, explaining what his coined word means! I claim to know absolutely nothing about the term (no, I haven't read any of those books), but it seems like WP:NEO. BTW, is that a "keep"?  Nole  lover  01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Give it time for somebody to add meat to the article. There are enough book and article hits at Google to suggest the concept has become mainstream, but you'd never know it from the article. Let's give it a week's relisting - and if nobody has seen fit to fix the article by the end of another week, let's delete it as a neologism. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per which shows significant coverage in reliable sources. The present form of the article is irrelevant -- for non-BLP issues, AFD is not intended to present the community with the ultimatum "fix it in a week, or the article dies!" Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable neologism in the form of a dictionary definition. At least it's attributed to the guy who made it up. Carrite (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete NN neologism. The term has probably been independently coined lots of times, without gaining any real currency. Ray  Talk 05:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep For the avoidance of doubt my vote (although this isn't a vote is it) is to keep given the multiple uses of the term in online and offline reference. WP:NEO states "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term". Given the existance of books about this term it would seem to me to meet the criteria. I would expand but I'm busy in real life.  Francium12  17:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears to meet the criteria even if current article is weak.--Utinomen (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AfD Withdrawn - The article and its references have been significantly added to by User:Francium12. Someone else can re-nominate it, but I can no longer support its deletion.  Nole  lover  15:02, 8 September 2010 (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.