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 no consensus. Some form of merge with Clintonian is suggested, with the details to be worked out on the talk page (e.g. what direction to merge in). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clintonism[edit]

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

This is at best a WP:NEO, and the current state of the the article is a WP:DICDEF of the term as defined by the Democratic Leadership Council and not much else. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft A google search reveals a lot of results about it, although most are about Hillary and not Bill, so that will need to be added (or the article be changed entirely). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete, then immediately move Clintonian to Clintonism Yes, the article is trash at the moment, but the topic clearly passes GNG. ~~The article could and probably should be rewritten, but we don't need a "delete" AfD result to do that. If anything, deletion would probably make it harder to re-create.~~ p b p 14:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think calling this term a "neologism" is the right call. They've been referring to Bill Clinton's political positions as "Clintonism" since he was President, and that was a decade and a half ago. p b p 21:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the similar article Clintonian also exists. Perhaps a redirect/merge there would solve this issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clintonian - good work finding that one guys (and gals?). Timtempleton (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2017 (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.