Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.I. Joe fallacy

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. ✗plicit 00:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G.I. Joe fallacy

[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)

This manufactured phrase of recent coinage does note seem at all notable to me. If it is just a case of Cognitive bias, it can at best be merged there. BD2412 T 00:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two unique references, one of which is a non-peer-reviewed working paper and the other a blog. I can find plenty of other mentions but all are SPS. Looks like a case of WP:NEOLOGISM. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should this phrase get any real traction and coverage, we can always re-create the article, as it's just a definition right now anyway. Cortador (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A neologism that doesn't have any notability at the moment. DrowssapSMM 18:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources only give enough for a definition. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2024 (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.