Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Clinton crazies: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:28, 22 July 2016 editClpo13 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,651 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:41, 21 April 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(33 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''no consensus'''. A majority is of the view that this term has received enough coverage for us to cover it as well. But this does not amount to consensus to keep, so a merger discussion remains possible. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}


:{{la|Clinton crazies}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) :{{la|Clinton crazies}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
Line 13: Line 20:
*'''Comment''' All those voting to keep, by the same reasoning I urge you to visit ], which has already been preemptively destroyed and redirected. If the term 'Clinton crazies' can have its own article, why does the conversation on the ] deserve to be censored? ] (]) 14:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC) *'''Comment''' All those voting to keep, by the same reasoning I urge you to visit ], which has already been preemptively destroyed and redirected. If the term 'Clinton crazies' can have its own article, why does the conversation on the ] deserve to be censored? ] (]) 14:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
**Because they're two different topics. The notability of one does not have any effect on the notability of the other. ]<sub>(])</sub> 15:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC) **Because they're two different topics. The notability of one does not have any effect on the notability of the other. ]<sub>(])</sub> 15:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
**Also, maybe tone down the ] on your user page. That content almost certainly falls afoul of ], though it does explain why you feel so strongly about this subject. ]<sub>(])</sub> 15:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
***What are you talking about? Why, specifically, do you think that we should have an article on ']' but not on the ']'? As far as my user page, we're all biased by nature; and, we are all editing an encyclopedia. At least I am being honest about it. All the people opposing me and reverting me are also biased-- they're just not open about it. I wish one of the pro-Clinton editors would just admit that they don't care what the depth of her {{redacted}} history is, as long as she serves as the standard bearer of far-left socialism in America. ] (]) 16:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
****If Misplaced Pages has an article on subject X but not on subject Y, it's because subject X was shown to be more ] than subject Y. So far, the community thinks ''Clinton crazies'' is notable enough for inclusion while ''Clinton Body Count'' isn't. It's as simple as that. As to ''why'' that's the case, well, it's probably a matter of how many sources there are talking about each subject and whether those sources are ]. Personally, I have no opinion on either article, but I think that if you're going to start assuming anyone in favor of this article and against the other is necessarily pro-Clinton, you're going to have a bad time. ]<sub>(])</sub> 17:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
*****Look at the two terms. There are more people talking about the 'Clinton Body Count' than people talking about critics of the Clintons being 'Clinton crazies', despite the contrasting poll responses here. The two AFD requests are indeed closely intertwined. Misplaced Pages needs to be consistent. If 'Clinton crazies' survives AFD, by the same standard so should 'Clinton Body Count'. I would be fine with both articles getting redirected or deleted too-- as long as we stay consistent. ] (]) 17:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
**{{tq|"All those voting to keep, by the same reasoning I urge you to visit ]"}} This is rather unabashed ]. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></span> \\ 23:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Historical phrase. Well enough documented by ]. Has current usage. Article is ]. No compliance with ]. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 18:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
*<s>'''Delete''' WP:NEO says ]. Show me plenty of sources that are about the term rather than just using it, and maybe I'll change my !vote to keep. </s>] (]) 21:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
*''Comment'' {{cite journal |url=http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/00907329910260444 |work=] |title=Right-wing opposition to Bill Clinton and his presidency: an annotated bibliography |issn=0090-7324 |first1=Allan |last1=Metz |year=1999 |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=13 - 61}} Enjoy. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 21:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
::I couldn't enjoy it. You have to pay 30 bucks to enjoy it. :) But I see enough sources now. Switching to weak keep. Cheers. ] (]) 21:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
*'''Weak Delete''' - I'm right on the edge for this one. Stripping it down to the basic question of whether to neologism "Clinton crazies" is notable, I'm leaning weak delete. There's the , , (not an ideal source for this subject), (also not ideal), and . That said, there may be a subject in here somewhere along the lines of irrational or unreasonable criticism/hatred of the Clintons. But I'm not sure how that could be done without a POV/COATRACK nightmare, and it may well be that such criticism can simply be covered in the standard articles about political positions, campaigns, biographies, etc. (of which there are many). I'm willing to be persuaded to switch, but for now I think delete. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></span> \\ 23:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' We lack good sources to indicate this is either a well used term, or a broadly used one. It does not fit our guidelines for articles on terminology.] (]) 13:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Appears to be documented in reliable sources.♦ ] 11:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
*'''Weak keep''' Alright, then. I see enough sources. ] (]) 21:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' - Non-notable neologism. It's election season again, here they come... ] (]) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' – Prolific use since the 1990s, as espoused within sources provided. —]<span style="color:#FF9F00;">☆</span>] 05:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
*'''Provisional keep''' but consider retitling to something less neologism-ish and pejorative. Also, consider whether this could be merged into another article or morphed into a broader article about the broader phenomenon / concept of X-derangement syndrome, e.g. ] (which, after 6 nominations, is currently redirected to ]). - ] (]) 21:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I wasn't aware of this phrase, but I found a 1997 New York Times article on it, so it has clearly been notable for some time. --] (]) 00:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 16:41, 21 April 2022

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 no consensus. A majority is of the view that this term has received enough coverage for us to cover it as well. But this does not amount to consensus to keep, so a merger discussion remains possible.  Sandstein  07:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Clinton crazies

Clinton crazies (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)

This article is a biased attack piece meant to attack critics of the Clintons. Unlike Hillary Clinton's term 'vast right-wing conspiracy'-- a well-known political phrase, this term is an infrequently used neologism and does not warrant its own article. JoeM (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:NPOV and WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The "news" and "Highbeam" links above show many other uses of the term in the mainstream media, both then and now. 2600:1002:B11F:62A8:2907:E926:A8BA:A430 (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Why do we have all these articles for political nicknames? Bernie Bro got one too. Apparently any derogatory name that pop culture comes up with to describe opposing politics is fair game for a Misplaced Pages article. Not to be a deletionist, but it doesn't seem like all of these short-lived pop culture factoids need their own pages. What if we Merge them all into a page for "political nicknames" or something? Jergling (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep was also skeptical about this but a google search shows it has been used quite a lot including reference to Trump.Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to some article about criticism or controversy of the Clintons with a neutral title. Note also that this article does not match its title. The title refers to some people. The article is actually about the condition of obsessive hostility towards the Clintons. Borock (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Just struck out part of my comment after reading article again and checking out sources. It is not clear if being "Clinton crazy" is a mental condition, or if the "Clinton crazies" are a group of people.Borock (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't enjoy it. You have to pay 30 bucks to enjoy it. :) But I see enough sources now. Switching to weak keep. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
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.