Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hilary Doctrine

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. SarahStierch (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hilary Doctrine

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

An essay about a speech and an article about the speech. It's not an encyclopedia article, and I don't think it soon could be, unless it gains some significant scholarly attention. ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. As a side note, Clinton's first name is Hillary, not Hilary. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely original research, WP:NOT#ESSAY. Alex^{discussion ★} 07:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a couple of mainstream media articles about the "Hillary Doctrine" but while some of them mention this particular speech and its context, others use the term differently. So I don't think there's an established "Hillary Doctrine", which makes this WP:OR at best, and the contents themselves are about the speech, which doesn't meet GNG either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as non-notable neologism. There is no "Hilary doctrine" (sic.) outside of the original hook of some journalist selling a story to The Atlantic magazine. The speech itself was not a watershed worthy of encyclopedic coverage, per WP:NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite. Even if it did exist, a better title would be the Clinton doctrine. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 25 November 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.