Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry left

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angry left

Declined the speedy, as it is clearly not nonsense. But is it notable? Quote in NYTimes argues for notability. Seeking consensus. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The fact that two words were strung together by George W Bush may be notable, but the words themselves aren't. This is not a phrase that has any consistent repeated usage, or whose meaning there is a consensus. Having an entry for this is like having an entry for "yellow paint". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongomatic (talk • contribs) 03:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bush seemed to just be saying that the "left" was "angry" at McCain. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep common polysci termCdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence / reference for this proposition? Bongomatic (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing here of note, and besides, it's pretty poorly written. Wikipedia can't turn every turn of phrase into an article. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bongomatic, just a combination of words. Equendil Talk 08:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a two word neologism which isn't what wikipedia is for. Even if it is a "common polysci term" it doesn't automatically make it notable enough for its own article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete politicscruft. JuJube (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable neologism. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everybody in politics is angry; comes with the territory. Mad, too, but that's a different issue entirely. Not exactly a neologism; closer to a tautology. The article says nothing you could not have figured out just by seeing the noun phrase. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Politics does tend to lead to anger, in some people. Google gives us: “angry left” 150,000, “angry right” 134,000, “angry center” 6,490, “angry democrat” 9,310, “angry republican” 28,500, “angry communist” 1,800, and “angry libertarian” 1,210. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. Stifle (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a plausible search term for a certain perception, namely that a large section of the American left-wing are angry, which I'm sure is notable (i.e. a lot of articles are written about it). Is there a similar article we could redirect this one to? the skomorokh 14:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with reasoning along the lines of the "yellow paint" comment above. --Lockley (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2008 (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.