Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat Party (phrase)


 * 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   Keep as per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Democrat Party (phrase)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete, Non-notable, absolute nonsense. WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. If "Dubya" doesn't have its own article, this certainly shouldn't. Macarion (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Strong keep as per Cazort. The article is extremely well sourced and has been a source of political debate. CopaceticThought (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - I don't see the rationale for deletion. "Dubya" isn't relevant to this article, which clearly isn't nonsense. Rather, the article is well sourced and verifiable. Even if we think the kerfuffle over Democrat(ic) Party is silly or not, the article meets Wikipedia policy. -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Dubya" is relevant. It's a nickname used by detractors. And it's much more common and notable than "Democrat Party." This "epithet" is not important. Macarion (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Merge with Democratic Party (United States) as a sub-topic. --Teancum (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose a merge with Democratic Party (United States) because a cursory Gsearch shows that the term has other uses in other countries as well. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (edit conflict) simply because a valid reason for deletion has not been given. "Absolute nonsense" doesn't apply, as it's not gibberish, it's a coherently written article. The reference to Dubya really falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF and is an invalid argument.  Note also that a Google search, while not conclusive proof of anything, does return 900,000+ hits for "democrat party".  Based on some of those hits, the focus of the article should be changed to include a non-US point of view as well. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A google search for "huge balls" finds 121,000 hits. That doesn't mean the phrase "huge balls" is notable. Macarion (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "...a valid reason for deletion has not been given." Someone help me out here. Macarion (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You could try looking over Deletion_policy. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:NPOV Macarion (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Macarion, please stop changing your wording after people have replied to your nomination. Add to it and sign again if you like, but don't replace words. A reader looking at your revised nom wouldn't see the "absolute nonsense" claim, for instance, making the discussion hard to follow. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. Macarion (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, the original wording was here. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry, seems like it is certainly notable, with a lot of usage. Neologisms (which this arguably is) should have an article if the usage of the term has been covered by third-party reliable sources. This appears to fit that criteria, and if this is not a neologism strictly speaking, the coverage by third-party reliable sources indicates notability. Simply citing policies with WP:N WP:NOR etc. is meaningless, since you are not explaining why this article violates those policies. The   Seeker 4   Talk  16:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It violates WP:NOR because this it is not verifiable that the intention of using this "epithet" is to offend or deride, which is what the article is about. The fact that this article exists means it violates WP:NPOV, because this article is inherently biased. Macarion (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV means that potentially offensive topics need to be covered in a neutral manner and present all points of view equally, it does not mean we should ignore the topic. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - fairly detailed article with a bit of notability. Versus22 talk 16:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep- Subject has some notability above and beyond beyond just being a neologism. As an aside, while the AFD is running, we might want to keep an eye on the page, since I just reverted an edit that removed the AFD notice on the page. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject is relevant, well-sourced. I found it an interesting look at the use of politics and language, and have referred back to it multiple times since then. --Jordan117 (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems pretty clear-cut.  I was just reading some quantitative analysis of the use of "Democrat Party" vs. "Democratic Party", and came looking for an article on the phrase.  Lo and behold, I found this quite good article.  It has too much content, and is too peripheral, to be merged in the Democratic Party article, but there's no case for deletion.--ragesoss (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable term in US political discourse, well sourced. Rklear (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep since this is a notable term which is well-documented. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Keep"...as an independent voter I plead this case as strongly as I can. There's a reason I went to Wiki with this keyword. It's a very topical issue, now more than ever. There are a few sentences in the current article that strike me as more "lecturing" than "information" (especially the paragraph that makes a summary judgement that the use of "Democrat" is "wrong") but I did glean illumination on this issue. Perhaps this article should be categorized so that edits require editor review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.41.222 (talk • contribs) 2009-03-05 20:46:51
 * Strong Keep This article is very well-sourced and I'm a bit surprised to see such an extensive and well-sourced article proposed for deletion. Some of the sources are written specifically about this topic (as in written about the phrase/term itself).  That certainly meets the WP:Notability criteria.  Cazort (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * keepVentifax (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There isn't a topic which can't be written about neutrally, even if the topic itself is a position on one side of something, and the "dubya" point is moot per the pokemon test. The existence or not of other articles doesn't tell us if this one is notable. Huadpe (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources and examples demonstrate notability. —EqualRights (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is stupid. Macarion (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously a notable term.--210.248.139.34 (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2009 (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.