Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Liberal Backlash of 2003 (second nomination)

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Liberal Backlash of 2003

First Deletion Reason -- Non-notable neologism, violating WP:NEO. To the extent that it had notability, that time has passed. Morton devonshire 02:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment-- also violates Wikipedia policy against "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". See WP:NOR. Morton devonshire 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 2nd AfD. First AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 02:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep: Just more evidence of ongoing efforts to whitewash the Wiki's version of history. In fact, the backlash noted by Ivins has escalated exponentially, not least because the Republicans were reduced to perpetrating massive voter fraud in Ohio, and elsewhere, the very next year in order to keep the candidate initially selected for the White House in 2000 by the Supreme Court. Attempts at pretending the backlash hasn't continued unabated are misleading, at best. Ombudsman 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please base your arguments on our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. If you assert that this event is a part of history, please Cite sources such as history books that record and discuss it, and show by citing sources create by different people that the article does not contravene our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G 09:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — I see no references, and I see a lot of conjecture. Also WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to push an agenda. This doesn't appear remotely notable. Crossmr 03:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would hardly call this a "great backlash" worthy of an encyclopedia article. Political books usually increase in number as the presidential election nears, and this wave seems non-notable -- like it says, the books didn't do much come election time. Perhaps a "books critical of George W. Bush" list/category would be a better way to show this information, as would paragraphs in various articles commenting on the US political climate around that time. SliceNYC 04:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculous. Danny Lilithborne 04:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an idea coined by a single author; no evidence has been provided to indicate that there was a greater liberal backlash in 2003 than in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, or 2006. --Metropolitan90 04:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up in the newsroom one day. Gazpacho 05:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A perfectly legitimate topic for an article and this nomination is merely the latest in MD's series of AfD nominations on liberal topics he disapproves of. Gamaliel 05:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The term is cited to exactly one published author, yet it is presented like established history. You'll notice that The Death of the West, which describes a whole book about which reviews have been published, isn't written that way. Gazpacho 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please WP:AGF. Questioning the motives of the nominator does not encourage participation or help the community.--Tbeatty 18:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pretending trolling isn't trolling does not encourage participation or help the community. Gamaliel 19:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you think it's trolling, take it to RfC or ArbCom. Attacking, taunting, stalking and/or questioning editors motives on every article they edit is not acceptable by any user including admins. --Tbeatty 00:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Voting on a series of five or so AfD nominations from the same editor is not "stalking". If you actually think I'm doing that then you should be the one to take it to RfC or Arbcom. Until then take your nonsense somewhere else. Gamaliel 01:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The "nonsense" is the accusation of trolling. Please take it elsewhere. --Tbeatty 01:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom. Ramsquire 16:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this neologism does not appear to be particularly widely used. Google search for the term brought back a mass of mirror sites and very little else. Robotforaday 17:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates the policies pertaining to no original research & verifiablity. Appears to be a neologism as well.--Isotope23 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Tbeatty 18:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article appears to have been created solely to push the author's POV. That would be fine if it were referenced with other sources, but it doesn't appear to be notable enough for that. --Cswrye 22:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lie - it was hardy great, Bush got reelected... Dev920 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If those drunken hippies put their bongs down and voted, it might have come true. --Xrblsnggt 02:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious and clearly exaggerated POV. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every pronouncement by Molly Ivins is now notable? Santorum is a neologism that has caught on. This is not. Captainktainer * Talk 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to being original research and a non-notable neologism, this is more of an essay than an encyclopedic article. The title itself is fairly subjective - was this "movement" (for lack of a better name) really "great" or a "backlash"? Agent 86 18:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is being attacked (in a biased campaign for deletion against anti-bush topics) for the POV of the subject matter, independently from the POV within the article. Note that this campaign is being done in the name of NPOV, while clearly attacking a specific POV is POV in itself. PizzaMargherita 05:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What you're saying may or may not be the case for some of the people saying delete, but certainly not for all. I dislike the insinuation that I am acting in the interests of pro-bush apologetics. I simply say delete because the phrase is a non-notable neologism. There is no conspiracy. Robotforaday 16:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Like MLA below, a lot of editors here are not American; in fact, "liberal" is construed differently outside the USA. The POV of the article itself is at issue, not some political agenda. Agent 86 16:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently a POV dump.--MONGO 05:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently POV. Original research. Non-notable phrase. Not sure whether this is supposed to be an anti-liberal piece of humour but being European, I don't get it if it is. MLA 12:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with MONGO. Rmt2m 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.