Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrusionism

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intrusionism

[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 recently PRODed this. PROD was declined by another editor on the grounds that there refs in Google books. Actually only one person, Bhagwati, Jagdish, ever seems to have used this term with the meaning stated in the article. As such I judge this to be a neologism that has not caught on, is confined to a single author and is thus not notable. The other refs on Google Books are not for this meaning at all, but for a completely different meaning in Church history, and thus have nothing to do with the current article. Mccapra (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that only Jagdish Bhagwati has used this term with this meaning, see for example these books and these academic articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks Phil those links kind of make my point. They’re all links to work by Bhagwati with a few critical commentaries of Bhagwati by other authors. Mccapra (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the majority of those links point to work by people other than Bhagwati, and, secondly, of course most of them are about Bhagwati's work, because his name was included in the searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the term is so closely associated with Bhagwati perhaps a merge to that article would be the best outcome? Mccapra (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article for neologism; the fact that it is only two sentences long shows a lack of use, context, utility, and/or importance. Add the information to Bhagwati's page if necessary. MinervaELS (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the article shows nothing whatsoever about the use, context, utility, and/or importance of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG because there is no evidence that this is a real term that has been used by more then one person. I found no evidence that Intrusionism is a real term in a WP:BEFORE search I did. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2019 (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.