Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition of the stupid

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 08:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition of the stupid[edit]

This is a non-notable neologism. There are 206 unique search engine hits for the term. None of the results I sampled augment notability to encyclopedic levels. Erechtheus 05:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The problem with this article is that none of the quotes actually use the phrase "Coalition of the stupid". Moreschi 10:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --rogerd 11:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. PJM 13:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, the article is a week old and deals with a term which has been expounded through the western media, from university presses through to mainstream non-US media in reference to the 'war on terror' ordeal. Further, it is relevant on the same grounds as Cheese eating surrender monkeys. I believe that the instant attempt at removal of this article is based moreso on political / ethnic POV and not neutrality nor academic or encyclopedic evaluation. Jachin 06:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) <-- Admins: Feel free to go through my track record, I've never once done the, "You're just deleting it because you disagree with it line." but am putting my neck out simply because I believe that impartiality has been negated by racism in this instance. Jachin 06:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is extremely important that you peruse WP:AGF because you are most certainly not doing so in your above comment. The racism charge is also in violation of WP:CIVIL. I will note beyond this that you have not provided appropriate sources per WP:RS to back up your claims. Erechtheus 06:37, 30 September 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.