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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 05:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of liberal U.S. Republicans[edit]

No true way to determine accuracy of article. Lincoln doesn't belong on that list, and nor do any moderates like Guiliani belong on that list. Andros 1337 23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Inherently impossible to be NPOV with such a topic. Also, false underlying assumption in comparing Republican party of LIncoln's day to 2006. Crunch 23:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Crucnch. List of pro-choice Republicans or something might be verifiable, but deciding who is and isn't "liberal" is going to be POV. -- Dragonfiend 01:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Andros and Crunch. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-10 01:28Z
• Delete, inherent violation of WP:NPOV. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Andros & Crunch. Grandmasterka 03:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Republican In Name Only which has a such a list already, backed up with sources. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 10:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV magnet. Stifle 16:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. Gazpacho 19:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. There is nothing wrong with list of people by their political beliefs! -- OldRightist 04:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accuracy cannot be ensured however. Andros 1337 16:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - without an objective definition of "liberal" (some commentators - like Bob Novak - informally define a liberal as a person who disagrees with them) this cannot avoid POV. Even if there is an objective definition, yesterday's liberal is often tomorrow's "conservative" (whatever that means). B.Wind 04:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Sorry everyone, this is very dumb, but I actually didn't notice that this article was up for deletion when I moved it to List of liberal United States Republicans to avoid having an abbreviation in an article name. Hope this didn't cause any havoc! My appologies if it does. delldot | talk 09:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article simply has to be monitored by fair-minded people to keep it from becoming a partisan essay. -- Freemarket 09:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree that perhaps it could use some trimming down. -- AndrewBartlett 09:34, 14 January 2006 (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.