Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chardonnay socialist


 * 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   no consensus to delete. Any subsequent discussion about merging to Champagne socialist, chattering classes, liberal elite, etc is not something for AFD to determine, although it strikes me as a good idea worth exploring. fish &amp;karate 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Chardonnay socialist

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * see also Articles for deletion/Gauche caviar‎ 

This is an unsourced dictionary definition, and as we all know Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator, WP:NOT firmly applies in this case even if the sources issues did not exist. JBsupreme (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, transwiki to wiktionary or merge as per previous proposal Brilliantine (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per the same as all points raised here and at Articles for deletion/Gauche caviar. — Realist  2  11:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to champagne socialist. There is no need for more than two of these articles, the other being limousine liberal.  --Rumping (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Champagne socialist also has sourcing issues and is a combination dictionary definition + directory. It should probably be nominated for deletion under similar circumstances but I will wait until this discussion comes to a close before doing so.  JBsupreme (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is not a dictionary definition, because it is phrase that is widely commented on, not just used, in the media. However, it needs sources which I do not have time to find right now. I suggest that all these similar articles (there are the two mentioned above and a French term) could be merged into a single article, but I do not know what to call it. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the linking term could be chattering classes --Matilda talk 01:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A merger was proposed to Liberal elite but the consensus was to oppose the merger - see Talk:Liberal elite --Matilda talk 05:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Liberal elite would not work too well for this article, which is Australian and the Liberals are the right wing party. chattering classes might work for a lot of these articles, but perhaps not all. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  11:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Liberals are not liberal in the worldwide sense. Timeshift (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - widely used term and I have located at least three reliable refs for it. It is more than a dictionary definition as, for example, it is useful to understand the changing fashion in Chardonnay drinking to be aware that the term had more sting than it does now.--Matilda talk 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will add more to rescue this article but have to take a break right now --Matilda talk 01:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It has particular meaning in Australia more than anywhere else. Sometimes the term used was "Chardonnay Set", used as a derogatory description of inner-city intellectuals who were critics of the former Prime Minister, John Howard. It was used widely during the Howard era.-- Lester  07:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary or thesaurus, and the term appears derogatory with little reference in WP:RS. Timeshift (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the refs provided? Please clarify in what way they do not meet the guideline WP:RS?--Matilda talk 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer slightly more than one-sentence mentions. All they offer is proof that the term is in use and of its meaning. They don't offer enough information to give anything more than a dictionary definition with a bit of background. What would be useful would be articles or substantial article sections on the phrase itself, or more in-depth scholarly discussion of the phrase. I still think it would be better transwikied. Brilliantine (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the quotes that I embodied in the citations - in particular Mark Rolfe's article (noting that the title refers to wine) - and perhaps you would like to read the 30 odd pages and you would discover that it is a substantial article that deals with the phrase and its use in more than a passing mention. Once again AfD is not a call for cleanup, it is a debate as to whether the article should exist - are there sources to support the development of an article - I believe there are. It may be better that we have one article but I do not know if that can be done without breaching the policy on no original research. --Matilda talk 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Hm, the article is a little more expansive than the quotes suggest at first glance. I'm not sure if there is enough meat here for a dedicated article though. One article for the lot of these ad hominems would certainly be better, I think. Brilliantine (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that one article would be better - but as I noted above, there was no consensus to merge to Liberal elite - see Talk:Liberal elite . Then there is the qquestion of creating such an article without resorting to Original research and or breaching WP:SYNTH. Possibly could be done but AfD is a distraction. Moreover at the very least this and other related terms should be a redirect to that grouping ad hominem article.  In French the grouping article would be fr:gauche caviar and in German it would be Toskana-Fraktion, in the Netherlands Neo-gauchisme, in Sweden Rödvinsvänster.  The grouping is pejorative political terms currently a red link and perhaps deservedly so - however, I am not sure that the category Category:Political metaphors referring to people is quite on the mark - the Swedes do it better with sv:Kategori:Pejorativa politiska termer .  Note at Champagne socialist - a larger list of international terms is provided.  Our problem, compared with our other-langauge colleagues, is that there are many varieties of English and hence one person's champagne socialist, is another's chardonnay socialist, or limousine liberal - and there are possibly other terms - what does the Indian press in English use a similar term?  How do we create "one article for the lot of these ad hominems" ?--Matilda talk 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think chattering classes would be the natural title (especially since that article is extremely underdeveloped). but others may have different opinions. Brilliantine (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I proposed chattering classes above but as BDuke observes: it "might work for a lot of these articles, but perhaps not all". I think the best fit is Champagne socialist.  The term Chardonnay socialist is clearly linked.  I suspect Gauche caviar is too given the timing of its creation and use.  Perhaps the book by Laurent Joffrin might help to verify.  The article in the Daily Telegraph [ http://www.nysun.com/foreign/french-socialist-is-accused-of-failing-to-pay-her/46935/ ] asserts it is the French equivalent. --Matilda talk 23:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge the lot. The concept is notable and encyclopaedic but I don't think we need an article on every variation of name that has been invented. Nuttah (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.