Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear stonewalling


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear stonewalling

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

An article inspired by a single Reuters report that put together two unrelated words into a new phrase. Deletion requested as per WP:NEO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There's millions of two-word phrases that are unworthy of an article.  This is one of them. Gigs (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The idiom/phrase being used in the title of Reuters, a major news agency article in relation to a significant event/entity in global politics makes me argue, for politics and English-language notability, to keep and develop. Eventually discuss and agree upon another keyword/article body where non-fragmented discussion can happen on this essential topic in diplomacy. As well as a reference to the nuclear program of Syria, a reference to nuclear program/controversies in general, as a topic of diplomacy, is seen as useful and relevant for this article. An encyclopedia is meant to help in understanding context. There's no place i can find where this is discussed already. At least provide a usable redirect for the subject. Wakari07 (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary shows only an informal use for the verb "to stonewall", which present participle is apparently used in the idiom, not used as a separate noun. Can't add much there. The concept needs more context description, not less. Wakari07 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article, as it exists now, is clearly a very recent neologism that has not achieved widespread acceptance, thus falling under wiki's guidelines of WP:NEO. Looking through the gnews archives, there are references to this phrase in news articles going back as far as the 80's, where the term is being used to describe various, and completely different, concepts.  So while I can see that an article with this title could potentially be valid some day (though I have my doubts), the article as it stands now is merely on a unnotable neologism and thus should be deleted.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How in the world are we supposed to understand media vocabulary if we need decennia to consider a concept that seems at the core and at the edge of (defence) diplomacy? WP:NEO is absurd - here - in my opinion. Wakari07 (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and transfer - This information, though a useful (and highly relevant to modern events) one, isn't deserving of its own article, especially when there isn't an article on 'stonewalling'. What I suggest is the creation of the article 'Stonewalling' and have the information from this article pasted in as a section of 'Stonewalling'.--ɱ	 21:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Even the sparse sourcing in the article doesn't give any evidence to suggest this is truly being developed as a significant term - there are merely a few articles where the words occur together, and in the case of the Reuters article, the headline has been changed so it's not even there any more. For a term to have real significance, the term itself must actually be discussed in the secondary sources - it's not enough to show a few sources where the words happen to be used together. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoa Wakari07 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I already pointed out in my initial delete vote that the term has been used by various people as far back as the 80's. Its even been used in describing the US Government withholding data on the effects of low level radiation, which clearly has nothing to do with the various other uses of the term.  That was kind of my point that this is just a random set of two words that has no clear cut definition, and has just been used for a variety of different meanings by a variety of different people.  There's no one clear meaning of the word, there are no sources that are actually about the term itself, and even after the expansion to the article, this is just a list of all the times that news sources happened to use the words "nuclear" and "stonewall" together without actually describing why this term is notable, or providing any sources that actually describe the term itself.  Its exactly what Nwlaw63 said.  Its not enough to show that this term happens to have been used in order to prove notability.  There needs to be sources that actually discuss the term itself.  Rorshacma (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - It is not a neologisms that is in wide use as required by WP:NEO. It may eventually reach a point to where it can have its own article in Wikipedia, so it may help to list sources found so far. The following is a list of sources found so far (please add more to the below)
 * (The Moscow Times, 16/11/1992, "Kiev Should Stop Nuclear Stonewalling")
 * (The Washington Times, 14/07/2003, "Tehran's nuclear stonewalling")
 * (Council on Foreign Relations, 17/11/2006, "Iran’s Nuclear Stonewall")
 * (Christian Science Monitor, 25/09/2008, "Ahmadinejad to dinner? Furor ensues over religious groups' event.")
 * (Reuters, 14/09/2012, "U.S.: Syria must end nuclear stonewalling, conflict no excuse")
 * -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2012 (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.
 * -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2012 (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.