Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrediting tactic

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 merge to Smear campaign. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discrediting tactic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

At first glance, this seems like it might be deserving of an article (possibly notable), but there do not appear to be any sources for it. A Google search comes up with less than 1000 results. Maybe there's another term for the concept that is more widespread? As of right now, I am saying this does not meet WP:GNG, but even if we could get pass that, this article is a candidate for deletion per WP:TNT. It reads like an essay and is what many people would call a WP:COATRACK article. Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep for now. On the one hand, Wikipedia is not a WP:Dictionary of phrases, and a lot of results I found in this search gave me five reliable articles using the term but not discussing it, making them passing mentions. On the other hand, Scholarly literature, which Wikipedia has a huge crush on, does use this phrase a heck of a lot more to accuse institutions and leaders and other stuff, and it's not like what this phrase means isn't a commonly-done behavior, especially in higher-up places. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per other comments. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholarly literature would have the right name for a propaganda technique though. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The motivation for this was the prevalence of articles (back then) on Goreism, Goreisms, Gore-ism, Gore-isms, Bushism (AfD discussion), Bushisms, and so forth, including List of Bushisms, Strategery (AfD discussion), Potatoe (AfD discussion), Misunderestimated, MAKE THE PIE HIGHER (AfD discussion), and Suicider (AfD discussion). We seem to have eventually solved that in a different way. Uncle G (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into smear campaign which is the more common name for this political technique. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this seems to have meanings outside of the political realm of smear campaigns (sources do exist to attest for this, ex. [1]; [2]), for example in legal cases ([3]); and also manifest in regular political debates (Interview with a Harvard professor about this). I think that's enough sources that discuss the concept and not just the term for this to be kept and expanded. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Smear campaign, which has examples of legal cases and other areas that are "outside of the political realm" so I'm confused by the suggestion that smear campaigns would be limited to that and discrediting tactics are a separate concept. Combining these overlapping names would be a good way to expand this. The opposite merge of smear campaign into this article would also work if sources have a greater focus on that, but I fail to see what would distinguish these names. HumanxAnthro, were you aware of the other article when you !voted? Reywas92^Talk 18:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't say I was, but now that I know about I have change my !vote to Merge. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think smear campaign wouldn't be an accurate title for topics which are outside of the political realm (a lawyer discrediting a witness at a trial is not a "smear campaign", it is in some cases unethical but it is nothing like what can be seen in politics); but that might be an issue for WP:RM and not AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:48, 23 April 2021 (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.