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 per WP:NOR. Sandstein (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justifiable Insurrection[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Entire essay is an original research and WP:SYN violation. None of the sources actually reference the word justifiable insurrection. Just as in last time, google searches tailored to the words do not turn up any references that support any of the content of the article. None of the issues from the last AFD have been resolved. After all of the original research is removed, there is no actual article remaining. From the original AFD nomination, which still is relevant: neologism. Google search in quotes "justifiable insurrection" shows 67 ghits, none of which are related to the topic at hand. Author has been using the term on the Supreme Court of the United States article to push a POV criticizing the court, replete with weasel words. Refs cited in the article do nothing to support the term "justifiable insurrection", without significant original research and synthesis. WP:NOT for Essays.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's a mess right now, but based off of hits on g-books, it could be made into a decent article. It's has some cited direct quotes, so there's at least a place to start. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Just War Doctrine, of which this is a minor variant. But do so carefully, as this is overinterpretative of sources IMO. --Dhartung | Talk 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR/synth. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Definitely WP:NOR and WP:SYN violations; also a non-notable, unsourced neologism per WP:NEO. The creator argued in the first AfD that the Google results were pertinent, but it seems as if his argument was swallowed without factchecking; I find 22 unique hits [1] for "justifiable insurrection" (instead of "justifiable" + "insurrection", which creator seemed to advocate), dominated by Wiki mirrors and the inevitable "... justifiable, insurrection ..." Far from being a Roman Catholic doctrine, as the article claims, "justifiable insurrection" + "Roman Catholic" returns only this article as a Google hit. RGTraynor 13:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 24.106.202.234 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A plausible interpretation/construction of the term, but absent any reliable secondary sources demonstrating both that the term is sufficiently widely used and that its meaning is generally accepted to be that set forth in the article, this must be dismissed as original research. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGTraynor's excellent analysis, which mirrors my own findings on Google. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. Yahoo shows only 51 hits, some related to this process, and most others don't relate. BusterD (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2008 (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.