Deletion of The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history

Comment: or possibly '''merge''' (in considerably reduced form) with Mark Cohen.  This is one author's  and therefore does not warrant an article... it does not play a pivotal rôle in Cohen's work, however, and therefore should not be a central focus of the article about him, to avoid violating .  The article The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history presently isn't even linked to from Mark Cohen...and that's how it should stay...  Perhaps deserves mention, in passing (not in depth), in an article about Jewish-Arab history (I'm sure there already is such an article, I just don't know the name of it off-hand...).  Also, although it's a reason to move rather than merge, the article has a bizarre name that clashes with several conventions in 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:WEIGHT||WP:NAME)

Comment: This article was just created yesterday so it is still very young article but is by no means . Everything is sourced to the most reliable academic sources. My argument is based on the notability of this. The term refers to a new type of Jewish histography emerged recently; a dramatic shift from the previous Jewish histography. The topic by itself is very notable. This article explains and provides backgrounds for this shift. I start with some academic sources that mention the term: "The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history" (almost all of these are academic sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Self-referential by Cohen, and requires |original synthesis by AMinz just to get people to think Lewis is talking about it. Cohen = Lachrymose= dhmiitude somehow = bat yeor = lewis?!!? If this develops into a theory in the next decade or so, fine, but as of now, it's OR and basically non-notable neologism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)