Deletion of Nuclear stonewalling

Comment: It is not a neologisms that is in wide use as required by . It may eventually reach a point to where it can have its own article in Wikipedia, so it may help to list sources found so far. The following is a list of sources found so far (please add more to the below
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: The article, as it exists now, is clearly a very recent neologism that has not achieved widespread acceptance, thus falling under wiki's guidelines of .  Looking through the gnews archives, there are references to this phrase in news articles going back as far as the 80's, where the term is being used to describe various, and completely different, concepts.  So while I can see that an article with this title could ''potentially'' be valid some day (though I have my doubts), the article as it stands now is merely on a unnotable neologism and thus should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)