| Revision as of 15:35, 22 July 2016 editClpo13 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,651 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:44, 22 July 2016 edit undoJoeM (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users516 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| **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) | **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 one can say I am being honest and direct about it. All the people opposing me and reverting me are similarly 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 criminal and murderous history is, as long as she serves as the standard barer of far-left socialism in America. ] (]) 16:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:44, 22 July 2016
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)
- Comment All those voting to keep, by the same reasoning I urge you to visit Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clinton Body Count, which has already been preemptively destroyed and redirected. If the term 'Clinton crazies' can have its own article, why does the conversation on the Clinton Body Count deserve to be censored? JoeM (talk) 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. clpo13(talk) 15:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, maybe tone down the soapboxing on your user page. That content almost certainly falls afoul of WP:POLEMIC, though it does explain why you feel so strongly about this subject. clpo13(talk) 15:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Why specifically do you think that we should have an article on 'Clinton crazies' but not on the 'Clinton Body Count'? As far as my user page, we're all biased by nature; and, we are all editing an encyclopedia. At least one can say I am being honest and direct about it. All the people opposing me and reverting me are similarly 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 criminal and murderous history is, as long as she serves as the standard barer of far-left socialism in America. JoeM (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)