| Revision as of 23:55, 29 November 2005 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:10, 30 November 2005 edit undoSchmuckyTheCat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers23,934 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| *'''Keep'''. Clean it up a bit and add a link for '''Conservative crackpots'''. :) --] 16:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. Clean it up a bit and add a link for '''Conservative crackpots'''. :) --] 16:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy Keep''' as original nominator changed his mind. LOL. End this one. ] 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | *'''Speedy Keep''' as original nominator changed his mind. LOL. End this one. ] 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep!''' This nom is typical of those deletionist nattering nabobs of negativism who make this whole VfD thing a hell of ankle-biting masochism populated by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals. ] 00:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:10, 30 November 2005
Liberal elite
I don't know how this page can ever become NPOV, given the nature of the subject, also, seems unencyclopedic Deletemea culpa! Late night, little sleep, didn't look this one over well enough! Keep -- негіднийлють 05:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete.As a political insult it is noteworthy. The article attempts NPOV. Where it fails in its current version is its lack of citations. The only two external links are to blogs, one of them on Blogspot. Durova 05:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Keep. Durova 23:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)- Keep. The fact that this article has been in existence for 1.5 years lends some legitimacy to it. This is a real topic and, despite the fact that it is a volatile subject, giving it a NPOV treatment is not impossible. Jorge1000xl 05:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Whoa! I musta missed that when I glanced over the history... --негіднийлють 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - We don't delete articles that aren't perfect yet. Liberal elite has been bouncing around for years and is therefroe notable--Ewok Slayer --(User | Talk | Contribs) 06:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but clean up. If Champagne socialist gets an entry, I suppose this does too. The blog links at the bottom serve no function though, I believe they should be deleted. HackJandy 06:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid concept. Herostratus 08:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Just because an article has the potential to case NPOV deputes doesn’t mean it has to be deleted. Seano1 09:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Damn silly concept if you ask me, but a notable epithet in American politics (which occasionally creeps into British politics). --Last Malthusian 10:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Clean it up a bit and add a link for Conservative crackpots. :) --StuffOfInterest 16:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep as original nominator changed his mind. LOL. End this one. Zordrac 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep! This nom is typical of those deletionist nattering nabobs of negativism who make this whole VfD thing a hell of ankle-biting masochism populated by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals. SchmuckyTheCat 00:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
