Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Establishment war machine

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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to an appropriate target. RL0919 (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment war machine

[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)

Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, and WP:NPOV. From my reading, this phrase is basically a more pejorative term for the Military Industrial Complex. The article itself states (accurately, as far as I can tell) that the phrase has appeared just twice in the press, and the first source actually doesn't even use that exact phrase. That's not really enough to sustain an article. Nblund^talk 01:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 01:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 01:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All: There is a related discussion at the end of this talk § in response to Nblund's edit to the Tulsi Gabbard article.
Accepting Nblund's cmt above re Wicker's inexact usage, I adjusted Establishment war machine. However, as far as the exact expression is concerned, it is in popular culture (as indicated in the article), as well as in Gabbard's statement. AFAICS, no rule says it has be 'in the press'. Humanengr (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are, however, the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Wikipedia articles are about concepts, ideas, events, people, places, and things denoted by their titles, not grab-bags of quotations where a phrase (mis-)matches a title. Moreover, per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, those concepts must have escaped their inventors and become part of the general corpus of human knowledge. This article does not even explain what the denoted concept is, let alone show that it has become independently documented by multiple people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Instead, we have an article that has no concept to denote, and a title that is a phrase from one electronic mail message with some close search engine phrase matches thrown in, some of which cross a full stop. This mere bad quotefarm is not anywhere near in accordance with policy. Stop creating bad articles to make U.S. political points with other editors. The Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy covers that. Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article claims this is a synonym for "national security state". Since that topic currently has a one paragraph section within a larger article it's unclear why a whole separate article on the topic is necessary. I suppose this could be viewed as an article about the phrase itself rather than about the "national security state", but the phrase does not appear to be notable - there is no in-depth discussion of the phrase itself in multiple reliable sources.----Pontificalibus 10:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The relevant guideline here is WP:NEO, which says: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term Otherwise, WP:NOT#DICTIONARY applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article references politicians, such as Tulsi Gabbard [1], as well as academic thinkers, such as E. Michael Jones [2], who have used the term 'establishment war machine'. The citations that reference the subject are notable publications, in this case, The Washington Free Beacon and St. Augustine's Press. desmay (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source has already been discussed. Your second source does not actually describe a concept. Encyclopaedia writing by phrase matching in Google searches is not good writing. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hawkeye took the words out of my keyboard. Without sources discussing the term, as a term, we are in dictionary territory. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hawkeye7. This might belong at Wiktionary, but it's not within our scope. Nick-D (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for the feedback. Humanengr (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hawkeye7. Vermont (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National_security#National_security_state - the opening sentence says, "The phrase "Establishment war machine" refers to the national security state", so redirect there as "Establishment war machine" could be a valid search term - could also redirect to Military–industrial complex, which is a more in-depth article than National_security#National_security_state - Epinoia (talk) 00:56, 31 August 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.