Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Hillary


 * 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. Consensus is that there is not enough quality sourcing for this to be a distinct article topic.  Sandstein  17:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Never Hillary

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Egregious violation of WP:NPOV with poor sourcing, weasel words and astonishing statements in Wikipedia's voice like "Some individuals simply did not like Clinton for a variety of reasons including her being a conservative in liberal clothing." If anything useful can be salvaged from this monstrosity, perhaps it could be folded into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete "Never Hillary" was never a "thing". I agree with the nominator that this page is a complete violation of NPOV, WEASEL, and poorly sourced. I don't think the topic is notable, so I don't think there's anything to save. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A Karl Rove Super pac wasn't a legitimate thing? BlackAmerican (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * keep clearly passes GNG. Although I admit it needs an almost total rewrite. Would not object to deletion without prejudice for recreation Deletion_is_not_cleanup ResultingConstant (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How does it "clearly" pass GNG? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep  open to a redirect to Hillary Clinton Campaign Heavily Sourced Article included the sources of the Fox News, Slate Magazine, Marie Claire, Gothamist, The New York Times, New York Post, and Washington Post.  This article easily passes GNG and the movement especially amongst the Bernie Sanders supporters led to the election of Donald Trump.  It is diametrically oppossed to the Stop Trump movement.  A Super Pac exists of the same name which was key in stopping the election of Hillary. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC) ( Note: this user is the author of the article.)
 * WaPo source is an opinion piece asking why we don't have a Never Hillary movement. Marie Claire uses "never-hillary" in their url, but nowhere in their article. Slate uses "Never Hillary" in their headline and nowhere else, speaking about Bernie or bust, which had more discussion through the election and has no stand alone article. "Never Hillary" is not a notable term. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability by a mile. Many of the sources are not news articles; they are opinion pieces. A typical reference from the New York Post describes her as a "far-left, borderline serial criminal". Shame on us for even considering this to be a source. The article itself has many problems, but problems can be solved by rewriting. Nothing can fix the fact that the subject is not notable. As Moboshgu put it, this was never a thing. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The NY Times, and Washington Post aren't sources? BlackAmerican (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. Your jab at a clearly reliable shows NPOV view.Hilltrot (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like just like you have a problem understanding what "NPOV" means, you're not really clear on WP:IDONTLIKEIT either. MelanieN is not saying "delete this because I don't like it". She's clearly saying "delete it because it fails notability and the sources are garbage". And yes, the sources are garbage, not "clearly reliable". So throw WP:RS into the basket of policies which you appear to have no clue about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a clear understanding of what it means.  "A typical reference from the New York Post describes her as a "far-left, borderline serial criminal". Shame on us for even considering this to be a source. "  The New York Post is just as reliable a source as the NYT.  The NYP is more conservative and the NYT is far-left.  The NYP has excellent circulation despite being printed in a ver liberal city.  Declaring the NYP to be unreliable because you don't like what they say is taking sides.  This is NPOV. Hilltrot (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The New York Post is a widely-derided Murdoch tabloid with a heavy right wing and fact-free bias that isn't fit for lining the bottom of a bird cage, whereas the New York Times is a world-renowned, much respected broadsheet with a largely impeccable record for investigative journalism. Please don't pretend otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been whole books written about the liberal bias of the NYT. See Media bias in the United States.  Your opinion is just that, certainly not universal. MB 17:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but it's almost universal. Certainly in the context of this discussion, we can assume the Post is toilet paper compared to the Times. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's almost universal among people who lean left and voted for Clinton, including 90% of the voters in Manhattan. But that doesn't hold elsewhere.  So, no you can't declare the NYT is universally or almost universally much respected.  It's actually quite despised by people who lean right.  Your words "toilet paper" and such indicate you can't be considered neutral. MB 18:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is why America has become so polarized. You can only think in terms of left and right, so your country is divided. The New York Times is a respectable paper known for publishing facts, irrespective of whether or not some people (fringe right wing, basically) see it as biased. That is what makes it a reliable source. But the New York Post is universally known as a crappy tabloid with poor record for facts, and so it is only used as a reliable source in the absence of anything else. It is also known to have close ties to the Trump family. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I am unmoved by this "movement". I wondered why I had never heard of this so I Googled it and, unsurprisingly, neither has any one elsethat is no one other than those fine institution of journalistic excellence: Breitbart, The Inquisitr, and The New York Post. There are insufficient reliable sources that cover this in any depth. It fails WP:GNG by a substantial margin. The claim that the article is "heavily sourced" is to be rejected. For example, The New York Times article doesn't even mention the subject! The Washington Post article passingly asks "So where are the #NeverHillary Democrats?", refuting the notion that any such movement exists at all.- MrX 18:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is recentism at it's worst, and a mess in terms of sourcing and weasel words. I cleaned it up somewhat, but if I had removed all the SYNTH and WEASELing, it would be about 2 lines long. A few sources describe a hashtag and call it a "movement", but it's just another example of forgettable #Slacktivism. BlackAmerican, for the love of cat, please stop double-spacing after sentences and cites. Jergling (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is another name for "Bernie or Bust" phrased in a way to create symmetry with "Never Trump." In addition, several Republicans have used the hashtag "NeverHillary."  So it is really two unrelated topics, one of which duplicates another article and one that is not notable.  If I am wrong, and someone can find sources that support an article, they can recreate it.  But at present the sources are not there.  TFD (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Worthless trivia which does not meet GNG. --John (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * First, the clearly NPOV Never Trump is simply is allowed when the Never Hillary movement was obviously and through clear election results far stronger.
 * Second, We have plenty of evidence. ,


 * Not only that, but we have tons of empirical evidence that the Never Hillary movement did exist.
 * Third, an article is not deleted simply because there are problems with it.  If there are problems with an article, you are suppose to improve it, not be destructive and nominate for deletion.
 * Fourth, notability. Seriously?!  Hillary Clinton lost a race, all the liberal media were so certain she would win, they published this victory magazines before she lost.  What caused her to fail isn't notable?  If anything Never Trump is not notable.

Hilltrot (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a point, but this warrants at best a couple sentences in Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. — JFG talk 20:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, the mere existence of Never Trump is not "POV", that kind of a statement just displays a fundamental ignorance of what NPOV is and how it affects deletion/keep decisions. Your sources do not show that "Never Hillary" was something notable. They only show that... some people didn't vote for Clinton (holy crap!). Going from "some people didn't vote for Clinton" to "therefore "Never Hillary" is a notable topic" is classic original research. Really clumsy and silly original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Marek. Please read before you post.  It's clear that you have not read my sources.  It is very rude for you to refuse to read what someone has written and then lie about what was said.  Here are some more LIBERAL sources for the existence and importance of the Never Hillary.
 * http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/bernie-breaks-never-hillary-movement-for-good.html
 * http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-hillary-jail-20160721-snap-story.html
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html
 * Hilltrot (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - if you want Never Trump then you get this, both positions were massively supported and reported. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is just false. NeverTrump got a lot of coverage. NeverHillary barely registered. Oh, and it's up to you to back up your statement with sources. Otherwise this is just a illegitimate WP:ILIKEIT vote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This passes GNG: There is clearly enough material in reliable sources on this topic for it to pass GNG. I largely agree with Hilltrot's analysis above.  However, there are two considerations that give me pause on just voting keep: 1) The article may need to be substantially rewritten to pass policies and guidelines, and 2) It could be merged with existing topics.  p  b  p  20:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Party Unity My Ass exists as a redirect, and this seems pretty comparable. I think the ideal would be a redirect to an actual organization rather than the concept itself. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – First, this skeleton of an article is a hopeless mess. Second, who cares? The election is over, folks, take a break, enjoy the supermoon or something! — JFG talk 20:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your second point holds no weight whatsoever. The election being over now doesn't somehow make this topic less notable.  If it passed GNG before the election, it still does.  p  b  p  20:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, my second point is not grounded in policy, just attempting to inject some light-hearted humour into the conversation… However I do disagree on notability of this #NeverHillary "movement"; it looks like a mirror reaction to #NeverTrump which was actually very wide-ranging, and keeps unfolding in the streets of America as we write. Sad! — JFG talk 00:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

They are:
 * Keep Man up generation Snowflake. You lost we won Saint Aviator  lets talk 21:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a !vote that can be totally disregarded for lack of anything behind it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * delete political meme that never got significant traction . my news search .E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - As stated above, looks like it needs a decent bit of work. But there are plenty of sources, its notable, and goes with the existing stop trump movement article. PackMecEng (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment- I have found more sources under "Never Clinton" and have added 2 to the article. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * this LA Times op-ed that mentions Evan McMullin as a "last hope" or something.
 * [this] Atlantic article

I just found:
 * Time (official states that he is voting for neither)
 * this (mentions Republicans who choose Trump over against Clinton)
 * Are these good sources? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding new and bipartisan sources here. Please consider that these are opinion pieces which do not refer to "Never Clinton" as a movement. They do, however, show a trend, and if these opinion writers subscribed to the same movement it might be worth something. As it stands, they do not. Jergling (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your civility. I feel that the term "movement", however, is ill-fitting, though, upon reflection, this web-based phenomenon likely has little organization or anything outside Twitter. I suppose this might be a form of hashtag activism.
 * I honestly disagree with your interpretation of the last three writing pieces (Atlantic, TIME, the Texas newspaper piece) as opinion, rather than as political reporting. I hold the view that the Atlantic article is actually much stronger than because (a) the title writer (who is probably not the piece author) describes it as a "campaign", and (b) the hashtags are used in the publication, and (c), it is not clear to me that the article is an opinion piece because it is not labelled as such. Opinion pieces also do not generally contain interviews (as far as I am aware), so I think that the Atlantic article is intended to be some sort of reporting/analysis piece. (I agree IRT the LA Times piece; I felt it to be descriptive in usage because the writer is not arguing in favor of the idea) Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment/note to closer The policy-based "keep" arguments, except for Discuss-Dubious' above, have all asserted that the existing cites are sufficient. They clearly aren't, as none of them mention the subject at hand. Furthermore, suggesting that Never Trump's existence justifies this article is a pretty egregious case of WP:FALSEBALANCE given the coverage. Stop Trump should probably be deleted for other reasons, but undercoverage is not one of them. Jergling (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Never Trump article passed AFD.  Keep, 5 September 2016, see discussion.   Delete, 8 March 2016, see discussion. BlackAmerican (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Never Trump is a redirect to Stop Trump Movement. They are closely related, but not the same subject. Of course, none of this has any bearing on this AfD. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.- MrX 00:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I know it is WP:OTHERSTUFFy, but this furthers my belief that a redirect to a different article or even a rename is best. Party Unity My Ass being the better example in my opinion here as well. Consistency is important, and it just seems a bit odd as a title to me more than anything. Maybe a merge into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 even? I'm caught in the ground between thinking the concept is notable enough for coverage in Wikipedia, but also thinking the current form might not be ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a group of prominent Republicans who tried to stop Trump and replace him with anyone else, and some of them backed third party candidates, wrote in candidate names, left the presidential candidate on the ballot blank, or voted for Clinton. There was no equivalent Democratic phenomenon and the Democratic contest was essentially between two candidates.  Some Sanders supporters became "Bernie or Bust" and similarly supported third party candidates, wrote in Sanders, left the presidential candidate blank on the ballot, voted for Trump or did not vote at all.  But the emphasis was to back Sanders rather than oppose Clinton.  TFD (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's actually pretty clear why Stop Trump passed AFD now that I read it. It was exceptional in that it was Republican politicians protesting their own nominee. "Never Hillary" seems to be almost entirely propped up by conservative pundits with little concern for Democratic or Republican representation. Jergling (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per TFD's analysis. If anything Bernie or Bust would deserve the article, but it is included with the main Sanders campaign article. This was not a major organized phenomenon. Anything relevant can be included in the main campaign articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable topic. Arguments against are as WP:IDONTLIKEIT as can be. Athenean (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the arguments against are NOT "IDONTLIKEIT". Each one above very specifically points out that the sources are crap and that there aren't any that are actually reliable. Or that the sources don't actually cover the topic (instead, it's just a source about the fact that some people didn't like Clinton). Since your own comment - like every other keep comment here - actually is a vacuous WP:ILIKEIT (it's not "clearly notable". Prove it or stop making shit up) it looks like you're preemptively projecting your own biases onto others. As the good book says "Thou shall not project thy own failures onto others". Abide.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you following me around. You would also be advised to watch your mouth, as this AfD is covered by DS.  Abide. Athenean (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, since you popped up on this AfD right after I made edits to the article, I think you're preemptively projecting again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * comment I agree with User:Jergling that this presents an enormous WP:FALSEBALANCE problem. The NEVERTRUMP movement was significant, although, in retrospect, it appears not merely as losing, but as clueless.  This, on the other hand, never got significant traction, and I wonder if the whole tit-for-tat nature of much of the recent campaign could most usefully be captured by  redirecting this to a section on Never Trump. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are very few reliable news sources that mention "Never Hillary", and there are zero reliable sources that write specifically about it (the focus of the piece), unlike the "Never Trump" phenomenon. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not exactly zero. We have this Washington Post article, and this article from the Atlantic. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The first one isn't very compelling (it's barely even an article, and it only mentions the term once). The second article seems reasonably serious and reliable, but it doesn't really give credence to the notion that this needs to be a standalone article. It's a sentence or two at best in Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Both your sources are about Sanders supporters opposing Clinton, which is a notable topic for an article. But they did not actually say, like "Never Trump," that they would support any other Democratic candidate.  Because their motivation was not opposition to her but support of Sanders.  TFD (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is POV fork. There was very little coverage of the subject during the election campaign that had passed already. Whatever deserves attention should be included to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. My very best wishes (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems to be an important story in the telling of the 2016 election - and could have a lot more content. If there is to be a separate Stop Trump movement article, it seems like this is also an important point of view to reflect, particularly since she lost. Even if "Never Hillary" isn't mentioned in articles, there was a "Never Hillary" mindset and activities, calling Clinton "Crooked Hillary", James Comey late-breaking federal investigation claim, hacking into Democratic campaign computers, media about Hillary, continued coverage of the email server scandal after how many investigations (8?), none of which resulted in an indictment, etc.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Every presidential election in US has a lot of people with mindset "Never this candidate", which always receives some coverage. The only question if that was something really notable and unique, which represents a separate encyclopedic subject, rather than objections by supporters of another candidate. Based on coverage currently in the page, it is not, and it will soon be forgotten after the elections. By contrast, the movement "Stop Trump" received a much wider coverage and was something highly unusual. But perhaps it should be deleted as well; this is not an argument. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Every presidential election in US has a lot of people with mindset "Never this candidate", which always receives some coverage.
 * I do believe that it has been notable and unique
 * I would say, IMHO, that there are a lot of people that will not soon forget this election. Again, IMO, there are a number of ways that this will likely change campaigns going forward for both the Democratic and Republican parties. There are significant lessons for both parties to digest.
 * I'm also advocating here for Reactions to Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential election victory.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:My very best wishes makes an important point. Many notable elected officials and prominent figures in the Republican party backed Never Trump; It was a significant and unusual political moment.  But no matter how I search, I can find a mere handful of thin sources for Never Hillary, certailny not sufficient to support notability.  This topic is not encyclopedic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This turned out to be a larger movement than the Never Trump movement, and it is one of the main reasons why Trump routed Hillary in the general election. It garnered intense support from not only Trump supporters, but the Bernie Bros as well. There's adequate amount of sources in the article already so there's no questioning whether it passes WP:GNG. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is complete nonsense. The "Never Trump" movement was (and still is) a gigantic phenomenon that involved scores of high-ranking politicians, whereas the "Never Hillary" term was used by hardly anyone whatsoever, and the few who did use it were simply riffing on "Never Trump" anyway. Just look at the massive disparity between Google News hits on the two terms to get a sense of reality. That said, the existence/non-existence of a "Never Trump" article bears no significance to whether or not this rotting pile of non-neutral garbage should exist. There's nothing in this new article that couldn't be incorporated elsewhere, so it should be deleted. And in future, please make policy-based arguments instead of just claims with no basis in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. Moreover, assertions that something "garnered intense support," are useless without substantive sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's more than enough sources. I've already point that out. Acting like the "Never Hillary" or "Bernie or Bust" movement was too insignificant to take into serious consideration is one of the reasons why Hillary lost the election, and it is one of the reasons why the deletion of this article will ultimately fail as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're conflating "Never Hillary" (not really a thing) with "Bernie or Bust" (an actual thing) in order to give "Never Hillary" a false sense of legitimacy. You have no evidence this non-thing was "one of the reasons why Hillary lost" either. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The article was rife with that sort of original research before I trimmed it out. - MrX 20:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * revert article to agreeable point until result of AFD has been completed. Reducing the article to such a short piece influences the AFD BlackAmerican (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per TFD. - --Enos733 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't have to document every minor slogan or movement in an election campaign.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This was as big as the Never Trump movement.  BlackAmerican (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable slogan in a political campaign. Lacks reliable sources to show that this "movement" is of historical importance. Edison (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment If you look up you will see that there are many reliable sources for this article Fox News, Slate Magazine, Marie Claire, Gothamist, The New York Times, New York Post, and Washington Post. BlackAmerican (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete no need now, succeeded... hillary will never be president. 8 years for Trump!!! KMilos (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Your argument though is what? BlackAmerican (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that there has been enough coverage that this passes GNG. Here is another one:  []  The arguments that it was or was not as "big" as Never Trump are irrelevant; it probably wasn't.  But taken on it own, it's still notable.  WP is filled with articles that are deemed notable with fewer sources that this.  MB 04:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I did not mean that other bad stuff exists, so we should let this slide. Just the opposite.  This topic meets normal criteria for GNG and has multiple instances of coverage in RS. We should remain neutral and not require a higher level because the topic is politically contentious. MB 16:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Re "Here is another one": the Black Christian News? The fact that supporters of this article have to dig so deeply to find such obscure publications for sourcing only goes to prove how non-notable this alleged phenomenon is. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a stab at some sources, besides those already on the article page, Breitbart - Never Hillary: Mike Pence final rally, which seems appropriate for at least one source, Politico - Never Hillary, why women rejected Hillary, Atlantic - Toomey in the "Never Hillary" camp, Breitbart Students yell Hillary war monger, Dallas News - protest votes against Clinton, The Dartmouth “Never Hillary train.”, Never Trump / Never Hillary, Where are the "Never Hillary" Democrats, Fox - 'Never Hillary' uprising...Here's a start.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Many of those sources are garbage. If you have to dig up Breitbart and National Review to support your view, you have already lost the argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't "dig up" Breitbart to support my view. If you don't think Breitbart is relevant to this discussion - look at who our senior strategist will be for the Trump campaign. I believe that I said that I would ordinarily not use Breitbart.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't have to "dig so deeply" to find "obscure" sources. I did a google search on "Never Hillary movement" and the Black Christian News article was right there on the second page of search results. I merely cited that one to demonstrate that I had actually done some research before making my decision on whether this topic is notable.  Trying to exaggerate the difficulty in finding new source (it was quite easy) and deride them as obscure (google placed it in the top 20) shows your lack of a NPOV. MB</b> 05:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I will to take those sources seriously rather than just dismissing them. So, one by one,
 * Breitbart - Never Hillary Mike Pence final rally, which seems appropriate for at least one source, (supports notability).
 * Politico - Never Hillary, why women rejected Hillary (passing reference to the "'never Hillary' crowd")
 * Atlantic - Toomey in the "Never Hillary" camp,(supports notability)
 * Breitbart Students yell Hillary war monger, (cites a single student hand-lettred sign)
 * Dallas News - protest votes against Clinton, (supports notability)
 * The Dartmouth “Never Hillary train.”, (a student paper is inadequate to purpose)
 * Never Trump / Never Hillary, Where are the "Never Hillary" Democrats, (supports notability) ::::Fox - 'Never Hillary' uprising (supports notability)
 * In sum; these are real sources, albeit mostly opinion columnists. But much too thin to support an article, in my opinion.  A lot of opinions are expressed during a campaign.  Very strong sourcing is required to pass the bar on this sort of article.  Stronger sources might encourage me to look at a redirect target. Especially if there were RS published after the results were in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Where are the "Never Hillary" Democrats" supports non-notability. In an op-ed, a writer says there was no "Never Hillary" movement.  What should the article say?  ""Never Hillary" was a movement that never existed."  TFD (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am having such a hard time figuring out why the "Never Trump movement" has an article without question, but there are so many questions about "Never Hillary"... they are often mentioned together in articles. And, it would seem, that the Never Hillary crowd was more successful than the Never Trump folks, right?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , Carole, (if I may), I would like to take a stab an answering your question. You are, of course, correct that many, many people felt an aversion to Clinton, others, in 2008 and again in 2016, preferred akmost anyone else - a relatively unknown Senator from Chicago, an aging Vermont Socialist, a radical called Jiill Stein, and a great many lifelong Democrats voted Trump.  All of this happened.  What did not happen was a significant movement to Stop Clinton, a movement with significant numbers of leading politicians, Newspaper editorial teams, and public intellectuals vowing to oppose her, with groups like Free the Delegates. The  anti-Trump, Dump Trump, Never Trump,  Stop Trump movement was reported on and analyzed in depth by a wide range of major sources from across the political spectrum.  As I and others see it, there was never a specifically Never Hillary movement, only many, many people who worked for her opponents and voted against her.  Also, she lost.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , Based on results and coverage by the media, I disagree. What I see are: there's a "Never Hillary" facebook page and twitter account, wontvotehillary.com, many mainstream sources listed here and on the article page, Breitbart use of "Never Hillary" in article titles about the campaign, etc.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, see the Never Hillary merchandise.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I hope that we can continue to work together on future articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes,, that would be nice.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The article has tons of sources that are being ignored NY TIMES, LA TIMES, WASH POST, etc.  These sources prove GNG, and that is the standard for wiki.  Politico - Never Hillary, why women rejected Hillary, Atlantic - Toomey in the "Never Hillary" camp,  Dallas News - protest votes against Clinton, The Dartmouth “Never Hillary train.”,  Where are the "Never Hillary" Democrats, Fox - 'Never Hillary' uprising   BlackAmerican (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of these sources barely mention the term. It's merely a vague, convenient way for this handful of sources to refer to people who didn't support Clinton. The reason why WP:GNG calls for significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail is so that no original research is needed to extract the content. The Chicago Tribune article that you linked is actually syndicated use of the Washington Post article that asks "So where are the #NeverHillary Democrats?" These sources are unusable for writing a comprehensive article because none of them are referring to an actual movement, or even a single cohesive subject.- MrX 20:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well said.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * An article can be written based upon the total sources.  Never Clinton, Never Hillary as well as the hashtags have been a viable source of information.   If this didn't exist we would not have had President Trump as we do now.  BlackAmerican (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no benefit to this article whatsoever. It contains so little information, from such low-quality sourcing, that anything of value can be incorporated into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. An argument could be made for it to be converted into a redirect, but that's really a separate issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually thanks to EM Gregory there is a lot more information. All you have to do is look up anti-Clinton, anti-hillary, Dump Clinton, dump hillary, Never clinton, never hillary, Stop clinton, and stop hillary. There is a ton of information about that. BlackAmerican (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That was an incredibly stupid thing to do, BlackAmerican. You should not have created all those redirects until the matter here had been resolved. Your disruptive behavior has been noticed. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with WP:CIVIL ? That was extremely rude and mean and can probably get you blocked!    I created those links because the Stop Trump article has many links to that page including The Stop Trump movement, also called the anti-Trump, Dump Trump, or Never Trump movement, etc.  BlackAmerican (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What? Maybe you should actually read WP:CIVIL before invoking it. Trust me when I tell you I won't get blocked for either my comment or my edit summary, because they are perfectly legitimate. Creating a bunch of redirects to an article under the AfD process is wrong on many, many levels. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And if the result here is "delete" or "userfy" or "redirect" (actually a good idea; to what target?), the closing admin will have to delete all those worthless redirects. They probably would even if the result is "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to user space? Maybe? As I see it, if this was a significant thing, there would be the sort of post-game analysis that is there in spades for Never Trump, but that I don't find for Never Hillary .  Article creator or one of the editors arguing for keep might want to  offer to move this to user space and, when and if in-depth, post-election  articles about this movement are published in reliable sources, we can reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm working on a Bernie or Bust article: User:EtienneDolet/Bernie or Bust. Y'all are more than welcome to help out. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Page size of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 (5,389 words) does not justify this split; no reason that social media reaction from Clinton's campaign cannot be covered in the main article. In comparison, the Trump campaign article is 17,000 words long, which means that some topics, such as the internal conflict in the Republican Party, should be covered in a separate article. Esquivalience (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Size of another article isn't a wiki policy. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The information page "Merging" says, "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." That is consistent with the guidelines "Article spinoffs: "Summary style" meta-articles and summary sections" and "Splitting an article".  It is not a "policy," but highly recommended.  TFD (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See also WP:NOPAGE. Splitting causes the loss of context. In addition, while not a permastub exactly, it is likely to remain a short article of little importance. Per the guideline, length should be considered when deciding whether a standalone article should be created. Esquivalience (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The occasional mention of the phrase is hardly significant coverage. Much of this would be recentism anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I'm not impressed by this article but I think the coverage is sufficient to pass GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with MrX and Jack Upland; we don't have to document every minor slogan or movement in an election campaign. A very short mention in United States presidential election, 2016 would be fine. Neutralitytalk 05:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting a merge or a redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAmerican (talk • contribs)

(talk) ]] <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont) 10:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate set of information. See also Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">
 * Does it pass GNG? Is there enough articles to show notability? BlackAmerican (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as an unnecessary split from a campaign article. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 11:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Does it pass GNG? That is the question. You can see that other stuff exists, such as Anti Trump Movement, but even that article is long. BlackAmerican (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: WP:RECENTISM is our defense against the fact that every time a US presidential campaign spawns a new talking point it gets enough coverage to technically meet GNG requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an essay and not a policy or guideline. So it meets GNG, but it doesn't?   The SuperPac isn't a talking point.  BlackAmerican (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So it meets GNG? Have you take a taken a look at Anti Trump Movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAmerican (talk • contribs)
 * Have you seen Fuck Donald Trump? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Totally different and s till exists. BlackAmerican (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC) The Super Pacs is redundant? It isn't covered anywhere. BlackAmerican (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or possibly selectively merge and redirect. The depth of content is redundant and unlikely to require us to have a stand-alone article on the concept.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You do realize, BlackAmerican, that badgering every single person who votes differently than you would have, is unlikely to sway the final outcome in any way, right? Like you're just wasting you're energy doing so.  You are aware of that, right?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge as a few lines in the campaign article. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So a merge? But to which campaign? BlackAmerican (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Opinionated sources fail WP:RS, and article fails WP:GNG { MordeKyle }   &#9762;  23:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * From the Bernie Supporters to the ad campaign, to the Super Pac, to the Hillary Haters, where does it fail WP:GNG.  The sources range from the Washington Times to the LA Times, to the Washington Post, to The Hill, New York Magazine to the NY Times.   Where are the issues with the Reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAmerican (talk • contribs) 04:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep A lot of the Delete votes on here can be summarised as 'fails WP:GNG because the sources given are right-wing'. If we are to apply the barometer of balance then the NYP should be just as worthy as the NYT therefore WP:GNG is fulfilled. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The barometer of balance? Please explain how the Post is "just as worthy" as the Times. Also, welcome to Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with analysis of sources and have serious concerns about poor sourcing standards, as raised well in statement by who said it best among the comments so far. Sagecandor (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is non-notable and the sourcing is very questionable. -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk 05:50, 22 November 2016 (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.