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. KTC (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inferred justification

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This term was coined in 2009 study titled "There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification", published by sociologists at the University of Buffalo. The study got a fair amount of news coverage, but there's no evidence that the term itself has become common parlance amongst academics, which means it isn't notable. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While the term draws several ghits it's an echo-chamber: different publications quoting the same person. As the nom mentions, the term has not been picked up by others; hence, it strikes me as a neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this seems a clear WP:NEOlogism with no hope of developing notability. It's a bit of jargon coined on an off day by a sociologist. 'Nuff said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There only seems to be one paper using the term and a few other sources discussing that paper. I don't feel that this is sufficient to have an encyclopedia article on the term. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe if the term picks up in popularity it can have an article. Until then, the current article is unfit and ponders something non-notable. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 23:40, 6 January 2013 (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.