Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal denial


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberal denial

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Political soapboxing with intent to disparage, coatrack  Acroterion  (talk)  04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep There are plenty of references in google. Conservapedia also has an entry on it. --Monitor politic (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete it's just a biased attack page. Eeekster (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It exists. However this article doesn't provide secondary sources which cover it in depth. It would be better to just have one article on denial and discuss all types there. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Soapbox somewhere else. Ray  Talk 05:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 05:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Good grief I don't know where to begin. There really should be a speedy criteria for this sort of garbage (would a WP:G10 count?) For policy reasons WP:COATRACK comes to mind, as does WP:SOAPBOX, as this page's sole purpose is for bashing liberals. Umbralcorax (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If this is worthy of an article, this is by far the worse way to do so. Definitely fails WP:NPOV Avic enna sis @ 06:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a thinly-veiled attack page. J I P  | Talk 06:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- attack page. Pure and simple. Reyk  YO!  07:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with other editors. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Classic example of flame bait. Fails WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, and... anything I missed? ShawnIsHere (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with deletion. There are also other articles on denialism which could also be considered. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above. PDCook (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as attack. Already denied, tagging for review by another.  This is thinly veiled as attacks go.  WP:SNOW, anybody? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:36, 7 March 2010 (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.