Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat In Name Only (3rd nomination)

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 delete as there are no reliable sources which discuss this term specifically, so there article subsequently fails both WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat In Name Only

There is not enough reliable source material to write an attributable article on the topic "Democrat In Name Only". The article mostly is a BLP problem magnet and the problems noted by the AfD #2 nominator have not been addressed in the past two years and those raised in AfD#1 have not been addressed in the past three years. The topic better suited for coverage in Party switching in the United States and Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). While those with knowledge of current or potential government policies might be aware of the term, no reliable source has deemed it fit to be addressed in their publication to any material degree. There is no reason Wikipedia should either. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What a mess. Looks like POV OR to me. And RINO is short for dinosaur? MarkBul 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least trim significantly. One of the lists is almost completely unsourced. This is an encyclopedia, an article about Democrat In Name Only should be about the history and usage of the term. This article gives undue weight to people who have been called the term. That's like having the article Cheapskate focus on people thought to be cheap. Burzmali 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move~~ Merge to Conservative Democrat A term that's only used on blogs and webpages is basically someone's inside joke. As with something like "Feminazi", it's not notable until it's got some independent print or television sources. However, despite the dumb name, it's a good article about Democrats who lean to the right. DINO, RINO, hell if I know. Mandsford 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be merge, right? — goethean ॐ 21:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right... I should have realized that there would already be an article by that name, and the factual part of this is suitable for a merger. Mandsford 12:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This concept has certainly been the topic of reliable sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Some of these are better than others, but I think they're all worthy of citation in some capacity. A few of those are sources from blogs, but those blogs are affiliated with major news or political organizations, such as the New York Times. Clear keeper in my opinion. Croctotheface 21:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into your sources, there seems to be a significant lack of anyone addressing the term in question:

[1] - Uses the term to describe someone, that's notable for Wikitionary, not Wikipedia

[2] and [3] - Reference the term as part of a quote, that's notable for Wikinews or Wikiquote, not Wikipedia

[4] - Directly references the concept of DINOs and RINOs, but seems that it uses as a shortened form of "a democrat who often crosses party listens". Once again good to back up a Wikitionary entry, but it doesn't establish the notability of the term

[5] - Uses the term as an insult to Henry Cuellar, once again Wikitionary, not Wikipedia

[6] and [7] - Confirm that the term is used (although the claim is clearly hearsay), but does not establish notability

[8] - like [5] quotes the term being used as an insult

Overall, it looks like a derogatory term used to refer to a Democrat that votes like a Republican. I don't know if it make sense when applied to a concept, but Notability is not inherited. Burzmali 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Democrat in Name Only" is not a neologism; it's a phrase. Guidelines relating to neologisms don't apply. This article is about a concept and a phrase used to describe the concept. As it exists now, the article clearly goes well beyond defining the phrase and describing its usage, which is the job of a dictionary. My eight links show that the phrase is in common usage, including major publications. When there is an article on a candidate for president using the phrase, that is an article about the phrase. I'm sure the one I linked is not the only one. Besides, if Friedman (unit), which is a neologism, survived two AfDs despite much less robust sourcing, I can't see how that precedent could be reconciled with deleting this article. I'll also say now that I don't intend to turn this discussion into a back-and-forth between the two of us. I feel like I've said what I have to say. Aside from the replies I'm going to put in this post, I've said what I have to say about the topic and will leave it to others to decide the validity. Croctotheface 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, "Democrat in Name Only" isn't a neologism, it is simply a phrase someone came up with based on RINO, and nothing more. Like "bleeding heart liberal", "Massachusetts liberal" or "compassionate conservative" it is only used to disparage the subject. Unlike "Massachusetts liberal" no one has ever written about the term "Democrat in Name Only", they only write to call someone it, or report someone being called it. Can you find any articles that discuss the term itself? Burzmali 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced I have to. Your previous argument seemed to be based on the idea that this is a neologism (though you did not describe it exactly as one) and therefore requires very specific kinds of sources. I would argue that an article about someone calling someone else a DINO is an article about both the phrase and the concept. It establishes notability. For the record, I'm sympathetic to the "the article sucks" arguments below, but I don't think that sucky articles should be deleted simply because they suck. Even if they haven't been improved significantly, it doesn't mean that they can't be. Your "disparage the subject" argument seems to assume that there should be a different standard for pejorative terms than others. I don't see why that should be. Croctotheface 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "hack journalist" is also very popular in the press, as are "miserable failure", "well-dressed gentleman", and "five time winner". The term must be notable independently of usage to warrant an article. Just because Paris Hilton (and the press around her) likes to say "That's Hot", doesn't mean that we should have an article about it. Burzmali 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be my last reply, since I don't think some sort of extended back and forth is likely to change the nature of the discussion in a significant way. It might be fun for us, but it doesn't serve much of a purpose. One of your arguments had been that there did not exist appropriate sources for the article. I argued in response that there did indeed exist sources on the topic that featured the phrase prominently. These sources, I argued, establish the notability of both the topic and the phrase. You now seem to have abandoned the "lack of sources" argument and are instead running a different argument: something like, "There exist phrases X and Y that do not have articles. Therefore, Democrat in Name Only should be deleted." My response to this new argument is that the cases you give are not similar. Some of these other phrases you refer to are so common and so generic (hack journalist, well-dressed gentleman) that readers are not likely to be served by an article on them. In other words, if a reader knows what the words "hack", "journalist", and so forth mean, they know basically all there is to know about the phrase. Indeed, if you argue that "Democrat in Name Only" is a phrase like these, then you seem to be reversing your old position completely--no longer is this a non-notable phrase that is just the providence of a handful of bloggers. Now, you seem to be saying that it is such a common phrase that there is no point in trying to have an article about it. Considering that we DO have an article about it, even if that article could use improvement, that seems to belie the notion that there is nothing to say about the topic or the phrase. I think a much better, more direct parallel is Republican in Name Only, which most certainly does have an article. How is that not the best parallel case? Croctotheface 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On first glance it's poorly writen, and to me it seems like it's just about the democratic party Yamakiri on Firefox 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfairly singles out Democrats who take stances on social issues that the party used to solidly support. 75.32.38.191 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note user is unregistered. Also, this argument is unrellated to the notability of the phrase. --Ybbor ^Talk 00:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't matter if user is unregistered. Even if he or she is voting differently than I (I voted merge, 75.32 is voting delete) the vote counts. Wikipedia has a special technology that detects if you use your logoff powers for evil. Mandsford 12:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a vote. Croctotheface 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the phrase has wide currency and a notable history, although I would like to see it end up more like RINO which sources claims of a politician being a RINO, rather than just listing socially conservative democrats like DINO does. --Ybbor ^Talk 00:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Never mind. The more I think about it, the more the article seems like a piece of crap. I'm netural. --Ybbor ^Talk 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as used in WP:RS per Croctotheface; also commonly used on DailyKos. As my user page indicates, I am a Democrat, and I don't think it's biased. It can be fixed. Bearian 01:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: needs work, but the term has currency. MoveOn uses it. Whether or not people think it is an ill-defined topic or unfairly targets dems or monkeys or gypsies is immaterial.--Hraefen ^Talk 05:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A small challenge, can you find any articles that work for DINO as [this article] works for Massachusetts liberal. While two such articles would be ideal, even one would mean this article is worth keeping. Burzmali 11:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it can be fixed.Seventhofnine 03:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but fix. StaticElectric 16:35, 17 September 2007 (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.