Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-populism

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 redirect to Populism#Latin America. And merge from history as appropriate. Sandstein 20:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-populism

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

Neologism not widely used. Dentren | ^Talk 12:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To complicate matters it appears to be a genuine albeit niche term from early-2000s academia that has been co-opted by a lawyer called Erick Kaardal, who has an interesting history. He was recently sanctioned over a quarter of a million dollars for a batty lawsuit. He has also published a book about neopopulism. A cynical editor might draw a negative conclusion from this. Of course, I understand that we have to assume good faith, so I suggest that the article should be redirected to populism - the term appears to have no life except as a footnote. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect could be fine. Any content of this matter should of course be sourced after the redirect. I got the feeling that the article or term was created as a pun on Neoliberalism and populism, to label detractors of "neoliberaism" as "neopopulists". Dentren | ^Talk 12:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Populism per comments of Ashley Pomeroy.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Populism has a large section for Latin America where neopopulism is mentioned once under Latin America#Populist Socialism. It can be expanded upon there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My specific suggestion is a section titled Populism#Latin America#Neopopulism. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "populism" is one of the squishiest, fuzziest terms in political writing. This article offers is useless because it offers no definition and no sources for the undefined "neo-populism" it promotes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into populism, per above. The Populism#Latin America#Neopopulism suggestion sounds best to me. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2016 (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.