Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political buzzword

Political buzzword

[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)

One of a set of unsourced stubs explaining political things that need no explanation. This could likely be expanded by padding, but as it is it comes across as some amateur's WP:OR. Mangoe (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is the article's definition even correct? It seems like the article is describing political slogans or soundbites rather than buzzwords - I can't find anything that uses the term "political buzzword" in the way this does. Doesn't have anything useful to merge, and I don't see any real point redirecting to slogan, buzzword or sound bite as it doesn't seem like a likely search term. To the extent that this is talking about something notable I think it can be adequately covered in one of those three articles MCE89 (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources whatsoever. Created in 2018, and tagged as unsourced since that date. — Maile (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Purely OR, and runs afoul of WP:NOTDICT. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. There are literally dozens of books, hundreds of news articles, and a whole body of scholarly research in Political Science about buzzwords in politics. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not convinced. I have to think that buzzwords in politics work like, well, buzzwords. If you make this article from those papers, I'd be more likely to consider it. But I'm way past the point where I willing to keep vacuous stubs just because they might be expanded. Mangoe (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]