Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton crazies

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)[reply]

Clinton crazies[edit]

(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)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOV and WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment All those voting to keep, by the same reasoning I urge you to visit Wikipedia: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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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 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. JoeM (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - If Wikipedia has an article on subject X but not on subject Y, it's because subject X was shown to be more notable 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 reliable. 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. clpo13_(talk) 17:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - 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. Wikipedia 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. JoeM (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "All those voting to keep, by the same reasoning I urge you to visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Body Count" This is rather unabashed WP:CANVASSING. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical phrase. Well enough documented by WP:RS. Has current usage. Article is WP:NPOV. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO says "To support an article about a...term or concept...must cite what reliable secondary sources...say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.". Show me plenty of sources that are about the term rather than just using it, and maybe I'll change my !vote to keep. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Metz, Allan (1999). "Right-wing opposition to Bill Clinton and his presidency: an annotated bibliography". Reference Services Review. 27 (1): 13–61. ISSN 0090-7324. Enjoy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 original NY Times piece by Weiss, Daily Beast, Media Matters (not an ideal source for this subject), Huffington Post (also not ideal), and Media Research Center. That said, there may be a subject in here somewhere along the lines of [what sources describe as] 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. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be documented in reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Alright, then. I see enough sources. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism. It's election season again, here they come... Carrite (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Prolific use since the 1990s, as espoused within sources provided. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. Bush derangement syndrome (which, after 6 nominations, is currently redirected to Public image of George W. Bush). - Wikidemon (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2016 (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.