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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commodity narcissism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Contested prod. The only use of the term seems to be the paper by the (putative) author of this article and its main source. Anything worthwhile about this concept has already been inserted by the author of this article into Commodity fetishism at this diff. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or perhaps redirect to Commodity fetishism, where it seems to me to be completely covered. The principal cite indicates to me that this term is now subsumed by commodity fetishism and there doesn't seem to me to be a need for two separate articles. Ubelowme _U ^Me 18:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NEOLOGISM, this is simply a case of a professor or supporter of his attempting to popularize a novel idea as if we were a social media outlet and since it fails the notability requirements and is entirely lacking in what I could consider reliable sources or independent sources it should be deleted.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources for this subject. Appears to be a WP:NEO. --Artene50 (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable neologism. The phrase is a play upon commodity fetishism. A cute title for an academic paper, but not an encyclopedic concept. Carrite (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No substantial coverage in any reliable source. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:21, 2 August 2012 (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.