Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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 keep. Courcelles 06:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewalling

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bazonka (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the urban dictionary. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant type of behaviour in several contexts including legal cases; marital relationships; general communication; negotiation and dispute resolution. There is no significant dictionary-style content here — etymology, grammar, spelling, &c. — and even if there were, this would not, by itself, be a reason to delete. WP:DICDEF explains "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. ... A good encyclopedia article can and should begin with a relatively short but discrete explanation of the subject of the article ". So, what we have here is a stub and our job is to expand it, not to delete it. Warden (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there notifications to the Behavioral sciences, Law enforcement, Lingusitcs and Politics WikiProjects? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as a Behavioral sciences wiki project, but I have notified the others. Bazonka (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That bit about "sledgehammering" is wack. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subsequent article improvement has clarified the topic. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has improved since I first nominated it for deletion. I'm in two minds now; it's certainly more of a proper article than a dictionary definition now, but I'm still not convinced it's notable enough to be a standalone article. (NB I have removed the nonsense sentence about sledgehammering.) Bazonka (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been greatly improved since the AfD started (and after the first few !votes), and now appears encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current article is indeed "stub"-like, but proper response to a stub is to improve it, not delete it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is of merit, but needs to be elaborated on. Île flottante (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is significant enough to be on Wikipedia.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The article describes a behavior by politicians who pledge transparency and then engage in stonewalling. This article can be expanded and inline citations can be added. Keep it!--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Obstructionism. Those cover the same thing and having two articles constitutes a form of content forkery. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - there appears to be a LOT of coverage of Gottman's 4th horseman Stonewalling in various self-help / counseling books and this: "psychosociaological studies suggest that people who are stonewalling show incredibly high arousal" makes me think that although it is also directly cited to Gottman, the plural "studies" suggests that others have also clinically studied "stonewalling" and it is some kind of a standard body of study in the field. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant discussion in numerous reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, including books with the very term in the title of those books. — Cirt (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known concept, a good encyclopedia article is surely possible and reliable sources abound. Insomesia (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a significant topic about which we should have an article. If the current one has insufficient content, improve it. Articles grow, and even a definition with clear possibility of expansion is a good way to start. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now larger, and is far more than a simple definition. This is a well covered concept, as others have already stated. Dream Focus 01:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.