Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial state

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. W.marsh 13:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artificial state

Artificial state (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ill-defined term, sometimes used to refer to a multi-ethnic state. Favor deletion, merger/redirect. I don't think the article can stand alone. Deodar 20:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• 'Delete as nom unless someone has a redirect to suggest. --Deodar 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• The seed for this article is from this blog post; that *might* make it a neologism. Is there a better term for nations created by outside pressure? No Vote for now. --humblefool® 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. There's plenty of evidence that this term has frequently been used, but little evidence that it exists as a concept in political science. I'm not sure that we need an article about a vague political usage or derogatory term, and it seems unlikely - especially on the basis of the life of this article so far - that such an article would ever get to the point of being particularly informative, let alone reality-based, comprehensive, well-sourced and well-written or, in short, encyclopaedic. However, I must admit that we have plenty of other articles about equally indefinite concepts/usages. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Even Weaker delete. I was initially going to vote "keep" as I can see many reasons why this article should stay, but I think that the reasons Palmiro brought up are stronger.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Per Wikipedia's guideline on neologisms, this article isn't ready for Wikipedia. Specifically, the relevant section of WP:NEO states: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." TheronJ 14:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect per deodar --Nielswik_(talk) 11:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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.