Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manichaean paranoia (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manichaean paranoia

Manichaean paranoia is essentially one mans (Zbigniew Brzezinski's) neologism that did never catch. After 22 months, a phrase search for "Manichaean paranoia" on google gives less than 300 hits, the most important being copies of Wikipedia or references to wikipedia such as forum discussion links. The phrase has a definition (from Brzezinski) which is very confused as regards to real "Manichaeism", whereby it is very unlikely this topic will ever become notable according to wikipedia criteria WP:N. Before all this, it is not notable now. It has no substance, and can get no substance. For a precise analysis why I think this article is doomed to remain confused, see the talk page of the article! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a neologism or even a redirect, it was doomed from the beginning, since most of us aren't confident about correctly spelling "Manichaean", let alone "Zbigniew Brzezinski"; even "paranoia" can be troublesome. As a concept, it's not that original -- Brzezinski wasn't the first person to comment on Dubya's "good vs. evil" perception of the world. In fairness, the article should probably be judged on the version prior to the nominator's so-called "suicide paragraph" edits. Mandsford (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism, unless evidence of notability in reliable sources is provided (which seems extremely unlikely here). Terraxos (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--non-notable neologism, for which I can find only two instances of usage, and no coverage. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- for reasons stated above. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I think Brzezinski is notable and the phrases he coins are generally significant, I do not think this phrase is significant enough to warrant its own article. It's a description he used once on television, and not in any of his major articles or books. As such, its definition and applications are limited to the one very brief mention, and cannot really be articulated further. If the phrase had caught on, and other people had used it and applied it and developed it, then it might have enough substance to warrant an article. As it is, however, I think this can be safely deleted without any loss of value.—Perceval 08:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some content might be salvagable for a "Popular Culture" section of the Manichaeism article, but there isn't enough evidence that the phrase is specifically notable enough to merit a separate article. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I considered Zbigniew Brzezinski for that, but it's too good an article for me to mess into. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge either with the Brzezinski article or an article on Bush criticism. No sense in wasting such a memorable quote by such a major public figure. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objection to a redirect to Zbigniew Brzezinski like Nattering Nabobs of Negatism redirects to Spiro Agnew. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2009 (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.