Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narrative IED

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. Sandstein 08:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative IED[edit]

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

WP:NEOLOGISM - Google search on "Narrative IED" shows only 30 results (not all applicable), one gnews hit. Clearly not a term in common use. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If this is a type of rumor, it can be covered in the rumor article (and it appears that the writer of this article has already attempted to place it there.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This term doesn't refer to a type of rumor, but to a phenomenon caused by rumors that applies to strategic communication campaigns. The reason that there are not enough google hits is that it is a recent term. Either way, that shouldn't be a reason to delete an article, that means that only fairly popular terms have their space in Wikipedia user: Efibla— Efibla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I take it from your writing that it's a type of rumor ("A narrative IED is a rumor that can explode and thus degrade a strategic communication campaign.") Wikipedia covers WP:NOTABLE topics, and if the type of rumor under discussion is being particularly noted, it doesn't seem to be by using this term (as the Google results show), so at the very least this is a poor name for the article. It doesn't appear to be used in scholarly work (Google scholar finds no actual uses). Your sources appear to be Bernardi's book, and citations that only specify them as the term Bernardi uses (Bernardi views rumors as "narrative IEDs"; "narrative IEDs," as Bernardi calls them); if this is a Bernardi-only terminology which hasn't caught on (as it seems), then its invention is best covered in the article on Benardi. A rumor that spreads and has negative consequences does not seem particularly outside of the realm of normal rumor. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand these remarks and therefore will move the article to the rumor as strategic communication entry section. Thanks User:Efibla — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.73.67 (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2012 (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.