Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intervasion
- 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 neologism. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page is unsourced, and the only source I can find is the CD-ROM (?) Invasion, Intervention, "Intervasion": A Concise History of the United States Army in Operation Uphold Democracy (also here perhaps?). I'm not sure if this is a book on tape, a powerpoint presentation, a program or a government document. Irrespective, the page appears to be a neologism, with no reliable sources or notability; the page creator has edited the page to indicate sources will appear in December, and it will be be discussed, indicating in addition, a possible violation of WP:CRYSTAL. No prejudice against re-creation should the term gain use in the media in the future. Currently it appears to have no actual use. Contents have already been transwikied to wiktionary. WLU 14:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't assert notability. This isn't a dictionary. johnpseudo 19:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this appears to be a hoax - I'm an Australian with an interest in foreign affairs and defence and have never heard this word used so it is not the case that it is a common Australian word as the article asserts. This edit from the article's creator "For relaible sources to be quoted under Wikipedia rules, please be patient until political comment includes this term. Expected mid December 2007." suggests that it's something they either made up or isn't used outside the circle they move in. ---- Nick Dowling (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nick. People are always trying to coin new words. This one is one of those silly attempts like "intellichoice" or "warnography" that are too polysyllabic to catch on. Mandsford (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2007 (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.