The result was keep. John254 01:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NEO, WP:BLP, WP:V among others Uncle Bungle ( talk) 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The topic is a neologism, which as we all know should be avoided. I realize it is popular in the "blogosphere" but presently blogs are not the definitive source for the English lexicon.
The section general criteria lacks sources and therefore should be considered at best original research. In fact there are only six sources cited for the entire article, less than one per section. Two of those six are from blogs, which are considered self published sources. This has been a point of contention since the 2004 AFD and has not been addressed. It is unlikely that detailed, reliable sources will ever be found for this recently coined and undefined term.
Labeling individuals as RINO (but not limited to) Michael Bloomberg, Lindsey Graham and Chuck Hagel without citing sources is a violation of biographies of living persons. In that regard it is impossible to list any individual here as their accuser may be incorrect. In the words of Jimbo Wales We must get the article right.
Similar articles have survived AFDs, they should be considered separately. This article may have survived previous AFDs but I strongly urge you to consider that in the past three years, it has not improved.
Thank you. -- Uncle Bungle ( talk) 07:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Why is there so much concern over the whether it should be deleted based on what type of word it is? There are far to many cases of deleted articles that are perfectly relevant and accurate. This article is good. It definitely complies with the rules for deletion. Delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiburns ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 01:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NEO, WP:BLP, WP:V among others Uncle Bungle ( talk) 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The topic is a neologism, which as we all know should be avoided. I realize it is popular in the "blogosphere" but presently blogs are not the definitive source for the English lexicon.
The section general criteria lacks sources and therefore should be considered at best original research. In fact there are only six sources cited for the entire article, less than one per section. Two of those six are from blogs, which are considered self published sources. This has been a point of contention since the 2004 AFD and has not been addressed. It is unlikely that detailed, reliable sources will ever be found for this recently coined and undefined term.
Labeling individuals as RINO (but not limited to) Michael Bloomberg, Lindsey Graham and Chuck Hagel without citing sources is a violation of biographies of living persons. In that regard it is impossible to list any individual here as their accuser may be incorrect. In the words of Jimbo Wales We must get the article right.
Similar articles have survived AFDs, they should be considered separately. This article may have survived previous AFDs but I strongly urge you to consider that in the past three years, it has not improved.
Thank you. -- Uncle Bungle ( talk) 07:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Why is there so much concern over the whether it should be deleted based on what type of word it is? There are far to many cases of deleted articles that are perfectly relevant and accurate. This article is good. It definitely complies with the rules for deletion. Delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiburns ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply