Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accidental 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 delete. Michig (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental diplomacy[edit]

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

neologism that was used in a couple of stories about the current US/Syria crisis. The second paragraph of the article is clearly the author's original thought and derisive commentary, and doesn't belong here. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEO, WP:OR. (what is this English you speak of?!) Ansh6 6 6 08:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – This appears to be an attempt to create a neologism rather than document the creation of one. The article claims this is a term coined by Politico, but the article from there doesn't seem to do that. After the headline, the article does not use the phrase, and only uses the word "accidental" once, in the opening sentence – "an act of apparently accidental U.S. diplomacy". The writer isn't committing to declaring it definitely accidental, let alone attempting to define a new term. This isn't just a neologism, it's a neologism that isn't created in the place the article says it is. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough substance provided to show this is a recognized, notable topic. If in the future there comes to be the article should be about the topic, not the neologism. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just want to point out that in searching Category:Diplomacy for relevant articles where this content might belong, I didn't find an article about the historical role of diplomat errors. Such an article might be worth creating, although honestly I think Kerry's comments are too recent to fit into a theoretical mold just yet. groupuscule (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia follows trends in language, it does not create them. If a bunch of papers start using this term regularly we can revisit the issue, but for now this is not a term with the background to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2013 (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.