Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Liberal Backlash of 2003


 * 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 JoshuaZ 00:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This phrase gets 39 google hits when you exclude Wikipedia and mirrors, and I don't think it's a significant enough slogan to make it in. Delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:16, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)


 * Keep: I'm not fond of the name, which relies upon a knowledge and concern for Ivins's phrase, but a documentation of the coincidental welter of books is probably encyclopedic. Geogre 20:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Are we sure that there was a welter, or is this just Ivins' claim? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:58, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, except that this is a case where a strongly ideological president has drawn strongly ideological responses after controversial action. Again, I'm not happy with the title or the reliance on Ivins, but I do think that the cultural phenomenon of reaction to a strong political time is notable. Geogre 21:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Should title start with "Slogan:"? -- Jmabel 00:58, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, with fixes. The slogan was used by Ivins in an important editorial. However, the article has suffered "mission creep" by an unnamed very famous Wikipedian, so that it now includes a whole laundry list of all things liberal. That's going a bit too far. Fuzheado | Talk 01:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, "liberal backlash" gets lots of hits; besides, google listings are not the basis for keeping/deleting. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Delete. 39 hits? Cribcage 06:51, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. What Cribcage said. Ambivalenthysteria 07:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not for op-ed pieces, personal essays. Merge content with the Molly Ivins article. 172 18:33, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Maybe move the article to somewhere else if wording is poor.--Plato 03:41, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment/question: Normally I would vote to "delete neologism," but Fuzheado said this was used in "an important editorial."  I have to admit I don't follow political news as well as some here do. I'm not familiar with the background on this one, so I won't vote.  I just want to ask: Was the editorial important enough to make an exception for this term?  SWAdair | Talk  04:06, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm very into politics, and I hadn't heard the term. Hundreds of phrases like this are coined each year, I don't think most of them deserve articles, especially with this few google hits, indicating that nobody else is really using it. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:01, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)
 * Here's my odd view - if the article remains the way it is (effectively a liberal soap box) then it should be deleted. The editorial heralded the beginning of a deluge of books, films, think tanks and political groups that emerged in 2003-2004 in direct response to the increased influence of conservatives in American politics and the media. It would be nice to have this covered somewhere in Wikipedia as an article. But this article is not the place. The VfD votes should be on the term itself, and whether it is of significance. I can reasonably see how it could be voted to delete, but it would be nice if a roundup of this could be somewhere in Wikipedia. Fuzheado | Talk 07:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, or at best turn into a more general article under a different title; Ivins' term is hardly notable enough for an article of its own. -Sean Curtin 04:11, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'd rather we had articles about the random phrases coming from Dave Barry. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:04, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Documents a genuine phenomenon, or at least what many people perceive to be a genuine phenomenon, and either way deserves to be documented. Gamaliel 07:37, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Name is bad, but substance is good, as Gamaliel said. -- orthogonal 03:30, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Rename. Salasks 20:44, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The phrase itself is not in common usage. One editorial is not enough. As a more general concept, it is unproven and not really notable because, again, it's not much discussed. I recommend that someone who cares about this article move it to their user space, then wait a year or three. If, with the hindsight of history, there really was a "liberal backlash of 2003", great or otherwise, the article can be re-added then. Rossami 20:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 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.