Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleeper candidate

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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeper candidate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Original research, synthesis, on an obscure term. Orange Mike | Talk 05:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am with the nominator that this is an obscure term. The only thing possible here is a dictionary definition or an unsourced original essay — the latter of which is what we are now seeing. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM, which is very clear what kind of sourcing is needed for neologisms. Please excuse the long quotation from that policy, but I feel it is necessary so that other editors understand the requirements. Yworo (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."
• Delete or create Glossary of political terms and add it there. There's not quite enough about the equivalent "stealth candidate"[1][2][3] to support an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. & others. Google search produces no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 17:10, 9 March 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.