Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National security hermeneutics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
National security hermeneutics[edit]
- National security hermeneutics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research by the author; no notability whatsoever (no Google/Google Scholar/JSTOR hits). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NATIONAL SECURITY PARADIGM, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natsecurology, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biogeonergydeterminism method. Psychonaut (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nomination. And 'Hermeneutcs', like 'paradigm', is generally a warning that bullshit follows.TheLongTone (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. If it was a "scientific discipline" it would probably produce more than 0 hits in Google Scholar. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm surprised I didn't know until now that Google could return a negative number of hits. EEng (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as classic original research. No reliable sources can be found online, and the books cited are not notable, so it fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All per nom. Also, WP:NOT#DICTIONARY since the nominated articles are just verbose definitions, not encyclopedic articles. DocTree (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seriously out there.FeatherPluma (talk) 03:22, 4 June 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.