Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillaryland

:{{la|Hillaryland}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hillaryland Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Hillaryland}})

• Delete Stub Article, neologism, non-nuetral, Not notable. Chrononem ☎ 23:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The nomination fails to list a single reason why this should be deleted. Saying its "not notible" (sic) doesn't make it so; there are enough sources to demonstrate its notability. Being a stub or "non-nuetral" (sic) aren't valid reasons for deletion either. This seems POINTY given the nominator's editing history. Calidum T|C 23:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. A quick [https://www.google.com/search?q=hillaryland&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1# Google Books search] shows a least a couple dozen books discussing it. The first one up in the search, from the serious, mainstream Gerth–Van Natta biography of 2007, says "A campaign aide for Bill Clinton created the nickname “Hillaryland” in 1992, and the label appropriately defined an important subculture during the Clinton presidency." Books through to her Secretary of State days continue to mention it; see the Parnes–Allen book and the Ghattas book. An article on it here is merited. Yes, the article is still a stub, and yes it should be improved in terms of explaining the historical significance of this group of aides, but 'needs improvement' does not imply 'needs deleting'. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::With the exception of Muboshgu and his meat-puppets I will wager no editor who looks at this deletion request has ever heard of Hillaryland. Further, I'd suggest that if I hadn't pointed out his meat puppetry to User:Professor_JR the Proposed deletion would have gone through without any of you digging through my edit history and attempting to sabotage it. Anyone who looks at the article will know it's trash. Chrononem ☎ 00:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:::I've had it watchlisted for years and contributed to it several times back in 2007–08. If Muboshgu hadn't taken off the prod I would have. If you look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillaryland&action=info the page info] you'll see that 41 different editors have made changes to it. Anyone who's knowledgeable about HRC's career is familiar with the term. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::::Forty one in nine years, why, there's a median of... look at that, zero edits a month. Practically bustling with activity; and only half of them vandalism. Chrononem ☎ 01:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::The article was not in a good state, but lack of activity is not a reason to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The Google Books search shows quite conclusively that the topic is notable. Frequency of editing, or lack thereof, says nothing about notability. Why, after all, would many people be motivated to edit this article in the last seven years? Things have changed and this article should stay. By the way, I have nothing to do with Muboshgu, and I have heard the term for many years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. Artw (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep – What a ludicrous rationale for deletion. Firstly: stubs don't automatically qualify for deletion because they are stubs. Secondly, I'm not exactly seeing where this article fails WP:NPOV – it seems pretty neutral to me. Lastly: The whole reference section in the article with citations from The New York Times and The Washington Post, to name a couple, negate the nominator's "Not notible" (sic) claim. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Hillaryland had its own subculture, based on camaraderie, never leaking information to the press, and having plenty of toys and cookies around for the children of staffers - as Hillary put it, 'While the West Wing had a tendency to leak... Hillaryland never did, and every child who ever visited knew exactly where we stashed the cookies.'"

Yeah, MelbourneStar, the above pasage is about two thirds of the article. It sure ozes neutrality, it's practically Switzerland. Chrononem ☎ 12:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::Oh, you conveniently missed out the part of that sentence which started with "according to Clinton" – and ended with "As Hillary put it". That's not Wikipedia's view on the matter, that's Clinton's view – big difference. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:Irrelevent, the article can be broken down into four statements: "Hillaryland is a neologism for 'HRC's advisors'", "These people are HRC's advisors", "They're special because all are women except one gay man and they used to work for the Clintons", and "Hillary thinks they're great". Does not merit an article, is not written from a neutral point of view, describes a neologism, and should be deleted.

:It can't be neutral if a quarter of the content is dedicated to praise, even if it's not in Wikipedia's voice.Chrononem ☎ 14:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::::I've now significantly expanded and updated the article. I've taken off the stub marker, I've added some quotes about the significance of Hillaryland in both the White House and the 2008 campaign, I've updated it for a couple of other periods, and I've included the line of criticism that the insularity of Hillaryland was one of the factors in her 2008 campaign failure. I think this should satisfy many, if not all, of the nominator's concerns. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious keep. It's a real thing. It passes the General Notability Guidelines in that it is well covered by reliable sources. Also, the reasons given for the suggested deletion are bizarre, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::Yeah, WP:NEO's quite the puzzler.

"Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."

::Chrononem ☎ 18:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:::But the article is about the group of advisors, not the neologism they called themselves. Your rationale makes no sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::::It's the same with all neologism articles, you're confusing wikipedia and wiktionary. Wikipedia does not have articles about words.Chrononem ☎ 19:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::You are wrong. This article is about a group of people collectively known as "Hillaryland". It is not an article about a word, and it does not belong in the Wiktionary. Perhaps you nominated this for deletion in jest? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

::::::You have to be kidding. I will make this very simple for you: Neologism articles are not allowed on wikipedia, the term "Hilleryland" is a neologism. An entry about the term would be on wiktonary; an article about what the term describes would be on wikipedia. Since the term "Hillaryland" is a neologism, the article on wikipedia about what the term describes violates WP:NEO and merits deletion. Chrononem ☎ 04:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::You are misinterpreting the guideline, {{U|Chrononem}}. No where does the guideline say that articles about neologisms "are not allowed on Wikipedia". Although we delete many promotional articles about newer neologisms which have not received significant coverage in reliable sources, this is exactly the opposite: A neologism that goes back at least a quarter of a century, which has received in depth coverage in countless reliable sources, not only of the term and its origin, but also of the real team of people that it describes. Please do not try to delete Watergate as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::I also suggest that you enter "Category:Neologisms" into the search box. You will see that we have hundreds of such articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

::::::::If you scroll up about 7 comments you'll see I've quoted the part of WP:NEO that descibes what kind of neologisms are allowed. I think you'll find that this is not.Chrononem ☎ 12:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::As has already been stated, this is not an article on a neologism. It is an article about a group of people. You might have an argument for renaming the article (if a better name could be found, which is unlikely), but certainly there is no conceivable argument for deletion since it easily meets WP:GNG. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Notable term referring to Hillary's inner circle. Numerous hits in news articles from the major reliable sources that cover U.S. politics. Kudos to {{u|Wasted Time R}} for improving it from its poor state at the time of the nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Snow keep. "Hillaryland" as an article subject met notability criteria when the article was created more than eight years ago (substantial coverage in RS right here [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/20/AR2007062002567.html]) and still does. The interpretation of WP:NEO that I've seen above is far off the mark and verges on obstructive WP:wikilawyering. North of Eden (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep' The Reliable Sources in the article clearly establish that this group of advisors is notable and that "Hillaryland" is its common name. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.