Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowboy diplomacy


 * 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 keep. John254 02:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Cowboy diplomacy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Hmmmm. This is said to be an old term, but looks more like a neologism. Perhaps it's justa very bad article on a good topic, mixing fiction and fact. Or perhaps it should be merged somewhere else, since it sounds similar to gunboat diplomacy in some respects. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely not a neologism. Old terms definitely should not be deleted, but even this is moot since it's still used today. SteveSims (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Mentioned in Time and the Washington Post. Not exactly my definition of a neologism. Blueboy96 21:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A widely used term and concept, here to stay. Some of the Star Trek stuff crosses over into original research, but there is an encyclopedic core here. Nick Graves (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable term that has been used to describe presidents for decades. And to note, a Google Books Search does prove secondary source coverage of the Star Trek stuff. Joshdboz (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Like the nominator, the author of the article doesn't appear to be aware of the history of this term. It's a surprise that this topic hasn't been written about before now.  More recently, it's been applied to George W. Bush, but the term was used to describe Ronald Reagan (which is where ST:TNG got it), and Teddy Roosevelt, among others.  It's a worthwhile topic, but a lousy article, written by someone more interested in photon torpedoes than in foreign policy.  I'm sure someone will invoke the self-righteous "We rewrite shit instead of deleting it" commandment, although I don't think anyone will volunteer for that task.  Mandsford (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, uh, what, your role here is an editor is to advocate the deletion of content rather than improve it? We'll eventually be left with nothing with that attitude as standards for deletion ramp up higher and higher until you're left with one article.  Celarnor Talk to me  23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, is there content here? Musta missed it.  I'm flattered at the possibility that I would have the power to ramp up standards, but my opinion will have no effect on the overall quality of Wikipedia.  I hope that someone does rewrite this particular article to make it more about diplomacy and not as much about cowboys. Mandsford (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Notable term that has been used long before TNG ever thought about it.  I think it's fine as it is, but I'll see if I can improve it.  Celarnor Talk to me  23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Goes back at least to Japan in the '60s and Iran in the 70s so not a neologism. I think it can be explained without being a dicdef, but I'll admit this is not one I have the interest or tine to tackle right now. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Notable and widely-used term, not a neologism. Remove the Star Trek focus though, or make it very brief... or how about a "Cowboy diplomacy in popular culture" article? (I'm joking!) Also, we should rewrite shit instead of deleting it.--Canley (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewrite and keep - Valid topic, but a terrible article - being a Brit, I don't expect Guy to be particularly familiar with a relatively recent and pretty-much-American political coinage. FCYTravis (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a relatively recent coinage, quite old. Keep and rewrite. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  08:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to be quite notable.  Yahel  Guhan  04:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.