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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memetic Warfare[edit]

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

Likely original reseaerch. Google books gives me four hits on that term, nothing very clear or reliable. The article itself uses the term three times, and no reference seems to talk about it clearly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if I wasn't so tired I'd use a line of memes as reasoning, but I am, so I'll just say clearly OR if not MADEUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to propaganda. There really isn't anything out there to base an article on. In fact, most of the current article consists of Propaganda in Foo forks. But there are a couple references to the term in halfway decent sources, so it's plausible as a search. And, as always, redirects are cheap. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination and The Bushranger. Anotherclown (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2011 (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.