Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat In Name Only

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. IceKarma&#x0950; 04:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Democrat In Name Only
Inherently POV:ed article title that exsists merely to explain that all Democrats don't actually live up to the Democrat-stereotype. XXX in name only is in no way unique to either the US or US party politics and can be applied to literally any party affiliation, ideology, religious belief or popular opinion and would be filled to the brim with POV garbage pretending to be "encyclopedic information" in notime. Naturally, it's also a verifiability and nightmare a breeding ground for political trolls. The Republican equivalent has been nominated above. Delete per Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. Peter Isotalo 17:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It looks to me like the main purpose of this article is to maintain a "list of enemies."  Not very encyclopedic.  Also, as long as we're ticking off problems, this is a complete neologism; the term is not, to the best of my knowledge, a term in wide use. Nandesuka 17:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, sigh. This is an extremely current term in the blogosphere and has been around for a long time, at least since 2000. Note that the article is not "Wikipedia's list of Republicans who are not true Republicans". RINO (and DINO) are common terms on the respective blogs like Redstate and the Dailykos -- not to mention the various TV shows and action groups that have also used these exact phrases and are listed in the article. A glance at the articles in question shows that they are well researched, well written, and extensively sourced. Before declaring something "garbage" please consider reading it first. Sdedeo 19:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete although I like the sound of Dinos and Rhinos. Dlyons493 19:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. While I am a little less certain of the veracity of this as opposed to the RINO article, it seems plausible enough and well-written. It's not inherently POV to have an article about propaganda terms—glittering generality has a long discussion of the propaganda term "hardworking families" for instance. The subject is not a neologism and the article is as far from propaganda as you can get! — Phil Welch 19:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean: It's not much of a term, and it isn't much used.  RINO has much more legitimacy in terms of usage, and there are too many possible terms for the sorts of journalistic blackface put on by pretend leftists on the debate-news.  It needs to be shorn of all "examples of":  that business is inherently POV unless there is a specific reference for each individual one showing where someone other than the article's author had called the person a "DINO."  Geogre 19:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep - I am doing a scrapbook on last year's election, and I need this info! It is still pertinent, especially with the eventuality of Hilary running in 2008. There's no time like the present to plan for the next election whilst mulling over the events of the last.
 * Keep: No harm in maintaining this as a list of the more conservative Democrats in the party. What I really would not want to see lost is the section on the Fox News Liberal. That article was merged with this article, so if we delete this article, we will lose the information that was in the Fox News Democrat article. --Asbl 20:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid political term. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - real term, widely used. Why not?  Guettarda 00:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, common usage in U.S. politics. Not as common as RINO, but I don't see how we can have one without the other. On the other hand, this article has deteriorated. We need to get back to having an agreed set of criteria for what is citable (just being named in some non-notable blog should not be), and what can't be cited should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonably common phrase in US politics warranting an article. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has been discussed before: Votes for deletion/Republican/Democrat In Name Only. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all the name calling is referenced and sourced, like the preceding article, I have no problem with it. Alf melmac 12:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this and Republican In Name Only. -- BD2412 talk 17:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Common phrase among political blogs; though the article itself needs a good scrubbing, the topic isn't inherently NPOV. --Calton | Talk 21:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, real term. Punkmorten 15:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This term is common enough, at least in the US. Carbonite | Talk 12:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, extremely notable term that is used often today. Piecraft 14:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep ··gracefool |&#9786; 17:01, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.