Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stochastic terrorism
accidentally repeated by a reliable source" is the most contrived reason I've ever heard in a deletion discussion. The |general notability guidelines only require coverage in |reliable sources. You don't get to decide whether that's intentional or accidental because that would be |editorializing and beyond the scope of Wikipedia.  Similarly, with neologisms, one doesn't just use that word for any new term, but rather those that aren't used by reliable sources. This article contains usage of the term by ''Rolling Stone'', ''Raw Story'', ''Vox (website)|Vox'', and ''Salon''; all reliable sources. Not sure why people are getting hung up over academic usage when the article makes clear that that's just the origin of the term and that it has been used by journalists. The proof of that is right in the references section
— NONE, NONE
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:EDITORIAL (Wikipedia:Notability)