Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ascriptivism

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, misspelt whilst researching. (non-admin closure) — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ascriptivism

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

Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be WP:NEOLOGISM — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not an uncommon topic in philosophical sociology [1][2][3][4][5][6][7], has been in use since at least the 1960s. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2020 (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.