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. The "keep" opinions do not address the issues with the quality and level of detail of the sources. Sandstein 19:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-tendency (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)

"Multi-tendency" is a term, not a concept with sufficient sourcing for us to support an independent encyclopedia article. At best, it can only be written as a dictionary definition with etymology expanded from primary sources. It lacks the depth of reliable, secondary source coverage that we would need to do justice in a dedicated article. A Wiktionary redirect to wikt:multitendency would be sufficient. czar 19:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 19:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• possible redirect - what about big tent? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article is sourced with both a definition and history. There is room for improvement but it seems to be worthy of an encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namiba (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there seems to be enough information in this article for it to be contextualised, and for it to avoid being an orphaned article. Vorbee (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And where, then, is the significant coverage? Re: redirection, I still think the Wiktionary redirect is the least astonishing result over the phrase's coverage at big tent. czar 14:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NEO :"Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." this neologism lacks adequate sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2018 (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.