Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Doctrine Unplugged

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Doctrine Unplugged

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

One speech by Hilary Clinton does not merit an article. This article reads a lot like a school report and I do not think it could be rewritten to make a decent article. The title is also unlikely as a search term, so a redirect to Hillary Clinton seems unjustified. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete The title alone is a problem: this phrase was used in one article in the Atlantic and gets maybe ten GHits. I don't see the evidence that this was a particularly long-remembered speech. Mangoe (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Clinton doctrine. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean move? That page doesn't exist right now. If you do, just a question as to why you think this topic is notable. as Mangoe pointed out, this speech doesn't seem to be particularly well remembered, and I'm not sure every speech of a former US Secretary of State that gets a news article merits inclusion in Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relisted mainly to give Bearian a chance to reply if they so desired :) (It's a holiday in the states, so if they live here, they might be delayed in responding). SarahStierch (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If this material is kept, then I'd like to merge all of this cruft to one place with a NPOV title. Otherwise, it should be deleted outright. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 2 December 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.