Deletion of Stonewalling

Comment: This is a significant type of behaviour in several contexts including http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HP1kZ9aIGAEC&pg=PA4 legal cases; http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Aa4vuLur_aYC&pg=PA211 marital relationships; http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IVSxsljxndsC&pg=PA130 general communication; http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cVtLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA35 negotiation and dispute resolution.  There is no significant dictionary-style content here — etymology, grammar, spelling, &c. — and even if there were, this would not, by itself, be a reason to delete.   explains "''One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. ... A good encyclopedia article can and should begin with a relatively short but discrete explanation of the subject of the article ''".  So, what we have here is a |stub and our job is to expand it, not to delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:STUB)

Comment: with Obstructionism.  Those cover the same thing and having two articles constitutes a form of |content forkery
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)