Deletion of Hillaryland

Comment: 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. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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  that I've seen above is far off the mark and verges on obstructive WP:wikilawyering
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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  – 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)