Deletion of Clientitus

Comment: As a point of interest, the relevant section of  is currently under dispute.  Perhaps this should be put on hold until that is resolved
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC)

Comment: per , , and possibly o original research. The article suggests that the term ''could'' be applied to examples such as those cited as references, but the second item uses it more or less in passing. (I am not able to access the first item cited.) Even assuming that OR doesn't apply, articles should describe topics rather than terms, as Kitfoxxe suggests
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:DICTIONARY||WP:N)

Comment: Good information, and well-written, on an interesting and probably important topic. However ikipedia is not a dictionary.  The article starts out: "Clientitus is a term..."  The material should be merged somewhere to an article on psychology or one on problems in the State Department or somewhere else. WP should not have articles on "terms" or "neologisms" by our own policies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W)