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 keep. Discussion below indicates that the group is notable within American politics. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 07:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HillRaisers[edit]

HillRaisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

This article should be deleted or moved to the wiktionary. Its a non-notable neologism which will not be remembered after this election or possibly presidency. Possibly merge into Hillary Clinton campaign, or Norman Hsu, and if theres no room there and its not important enough. delete altogether. Definitely not its own article. This is just silly for an encyclopedia. delete it.Boomgaylove (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is not here to describe a neologism, but to describe a group of fundraisers for a political campaign. Thus it is directly parallel to the Bush Pioneer article, which is not a neologism at all. (If you wish to delete that one too, you should mark it as a joint AfD with this one.) Who finances American political campaigns is a very important topic. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Theres another article like this one is not a valid argument (according to the guidelines). Whether it is important or not is up to opinion. Wikipedia is not a database of who raises funds for political campaigns. This term is a neologism. The people who raise these funds are not notable. Enycyclopedias attempt to document history and important news events may be history but is not news. (WP:NOTNEWS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 02:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The point of both his and the Bush article is to document significant actors in presidential campaigns, which is part of history and is encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nah uh its gotta go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.64.177 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.