Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal elite


 * 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 of the debate was nomination retired, hence speedy keep. Tito xd (?!?) 06:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Liberal elite
I don't know how this page can ever become NPOV, given the nature of the subject, also, seems unencyclopedic Delete mea culpa! Late night, little sleep, didn't look this one over well enough! Keep -- негідний лють  ( Reply  |  Spam Me! *  ) 05:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. As a political insult it is noteworthy.  The article attempts NPOV.  Where it fails in its current version is its lack of citations.  The only two external links are to blogs, one of them on Blogspot. Durova 05:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Keep. Durova 23:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that this article has been in existence for 1.5 years lends some legitimacy to it.  This is a real topic and, despite the fact that it is a volatile subject, giving it a NPOV treatment is not impossible. Jorge1000xl 05:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoa! I musta missed that when I glanced over the history... -- негідний лють  ( Reply  |  Spam Me! *  ) 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. As a political insult it is noteworthy.  The article attempts NPOV.  Where it fails in its current version is its lack of citations.  The only two external links are to blogs, one of them on Blogspot. Durova 05:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Keep. Durova 23:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that this article has been in existence for 1.5 years lends some legitimacy to it.  This is a real topic and, despite the fact that it is a volatile subject, giving it a NPOV treatment is not impossible. Jorge1000xl 05:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoa! I musta missed that when I glanced over the history... -- негідний лють  ( Reply  |  Spam Me! *  ) 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - We don't delete articles that aren't perfect yet. Liberal elite has been bouncing around for years and is therefroe notable-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 06:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up. If Champagne socialist gets an entry, I suppose this does too.  The blog links at the bottom serve no function though, I believe they should be deleted. HackJandy 06:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid concept. Herostratus 08:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Just because an article has the potential to case NPOV deputes doesn’t mean it has to be deleted. Seano1 09:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Damn silly concept if you ask me, but a notable epithet in American politics (which occasionally creeps into British politics). --Last Malthusian 10:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clean it up a bit and add a link for Conservative crackpots. :) --StuffOfInterest 16:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as original nominator changed his mind. LOL.  End this one. Zordrac 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep! SchmuckyTheCat 00:10, 30 November 2005 (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.