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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn neoligism created by blogger. Last afd was kept via no consenus without, it seems, the closing admin taking out the keep votes from meatpuppets. Jersey Devil 11:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In very wide use- both on the internet as shown by google [1], and in the press where I get scores of hits from newspapers like the Washington Post, Boston Herald, Times of London etc. -- JJay 11:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Books that describe word usage are called "dictionaries" -- GWO

• Comment:Thanks for that little bit of insightful information. I'm not sure why it's relevant, though, because this is an encyclopedia article that discusses a concept. For comparable articles see Category:Pejorative_political_terms-- JJay 10:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee. Well, that would be because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- GWO

• • • There is a huge intersection between encyclopedias and dictionaries. If there could be no dictionary entries here, a big chunk of wikipedia should be deleted. Can you explain "moonbat" in 10 or 20 words, as in a dictionary? Medico80 17:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I, a non-american, used wikipedia to look up the word, after having read it on several political weblogs. It is essentially a biased word, and the article should of course try to explain it a bit more balanced than it does now. Medico80 11:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wiktionary. It's a dicdef, folks. Quite a good one, albeit for a neologism that just about sums up the level of political debate in the US. -- GWO
• Transwiki per GWO. ScottW 13:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism. DarthVader 14:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki as above. Devotchka 18:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JJay. --Striver 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JJay abakharev 23:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JJay --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Medico8, also per Wingnut --chorankates 1:46, 26 May 2006 (MST)
• Transwiki digital_me^(t/c) 15:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, widely used on political blogs and forums. Rhobite 16:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE - Vanity User:Allen Funt

User's 2nd edit at wikipedia. -- JJay 02:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • You may want to look that up Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines Medico80 08:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for there is more in the article than simply a dicdef. B.Wind 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, informative, several users have commented on how they actually came to Wikipedia to find out about this term, making it notable. Joffeloff 00:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep - at long as it is noted to be a pejorative term, there is no harm in keeping it in WP. --Ben Houston 07:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is concerning an important topic since moonbat is used commonly om political blogs. I found this article by doing a Google search for Moonbat to find out its meaning and the article was very helpful. --apollo2011 21:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful definition of word used in the center / right blogosphere.

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.