Deletion of Stochastic terrorism

Comment: this obscure neologism, which apparently has not caught on after being coined (supposedly) 15 years ago. Maybe it will catch on, but in the meantime it's clearly 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (:WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: does not meet ; this term is not yet sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. There's no depth of coverage;  applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: into Lone wolf (terrorism) or Radicalization (or something else relevant). Concerned about  and . I thought the terms https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agitator agitator, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inciter inciter, or https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/instigator instigator or synonyms cover much of the meaning. The earliest usage I could find was by https://www.dailykos.com/user/G2geek G2geek on Daily Kos so I added that https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2011/1/10/934890/-Stochastic-Terrorism:-Triggering-the-shooters post to the article. I think G2geek created the term and G2geek says that too, "So far as I know, my version of this is original as of September 2010 and there hasn't been anything equivalent in the unclassified literature.... I don't know of anything in the open literature discussing the same ideas I'm discussing here. Frankly that wouldn't be the first time I came up with something no one else had apparently thought of before, and I don't say that to pat myself on the back.  At least this time the meme is getting traction." Seems like G2geek couldn't find a term to adequately describe what was perceived as happening with these lone wolf attacks. While G2geek had been concerned about https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2010/3/25/850939/-Protecting-our-elected-officials-collecting-intel-on-extremists attacks on politicians, the July 2010 Oakland freeway shootout was a "local" event for G2geek and probably inspired/crystalized the ideas for the post. Anyone find the earlier reference in September 2010? https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22stochastic%20terrorism%22 Google trends tends to confirm the January 2011 post as the start with a https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2011-01-01%202011-02-01&q=%22stochastic%20terrorism%22 peak probably due to Thom Hartmann talking about it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: I tried to find some of those academics discussing it and came up almost empty. The only arguably reliable source I found via Google Scholar was https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=RYWhDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT7&dq=%22stochastic+terrorism%22& this; all others discussed "stochastic terrorism risk modelling" or related topics that have nothing to do with what our article is about. The article mostly uses rather dubious sources to accuse American political and media figures of being "stochastic terrorists"; the only academic source using the term has an entirely different context. So it seems a little-used |neologism which is used here in a non- way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Again, I'm not sure why everyone is still going on about google scholar hits. Notability doesn't require scholarly sources specifically, just |reliable ones. It's more than a  since the sources actually discuss the term and apply it to real-life figures. DICTDEF |evens says: "such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." If you're claiming this article just merely states "definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information", then you haven't read it. I implore everyone to take a minute to actually examine the sources used instead of bandwagoning. (it's a stub, so obviously the article itself won't be as fleshed out as the sources it's based on
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:DICTDEF||WP:WORDISSUBJECT)

Comment: Could be merged or redirected to lone wolf (terrorism); also has elements of: propaganda, character assassination, hate speech, illusory correlation or even brainwashing#Popularization (but making those correlations remains  or  if sources don't make these).  Currently appears to be about a conspiracy theory lacking the necessary coverage which analyze it for us (to satisfy  and ).  Maybe it's just 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:PSCI||WP:PARITY||WP:TOOSOON)