Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Crow caucus


 * 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 redirect to The Lincoln Project. Clear consensus not to retain a standlone. Plausible search term, so I am closing as redirect. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Jim Crow caucus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Neologism, does not seem to satisfy WP:N yet. The article WP:WEASELly claims that it is being "used by critics " and "has been used by experts such as Stuart Stevens" of the The Lincoln Project, but does not mention any other such experts. The citations (several of which seem to be near-duplicates) indicate that the term was used by Stevens last month as a TV pundit (appearing in Jonathan Capehart's recently launched The Sunday Show), and around the same time featured in a Lincoln Project ad; and that other members of the group have also used the term since then. It's certainly a pithy epithet and may well catch on in the future, but as of now the article does not show wider usage. HaeB (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: The fact that the article's creator adorned it with the Ideological caucuses in the U.S. Congress navbox and also included it in the corresponding category suggests a possible misunderstanding about the meaning of congressional caucus. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Generally per nom. All the sources refer to the same handful of times the phrase was used, and some of them don't even contain the phrase "Jim Crow caucus." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also be fine with a Redirect as outlined below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This fails the WP:5P2; calling it the "Jim Crow caucus" is not neutral. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact one of the people listed her is Hispanic makes this very name very questionable. It also has very stong POV-pushing, and is clearly pejoritive in nature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This will not catch on because it is a very clear case of character assasination and lieing against people. I am sick and tired of Wikipedia being taken over by extreme leftist who will stop at nothing to deny those who disagree with them political power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 *  Keep . A commonly used term in US political discourse. --Tataral (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A redirect to The Lincoln Project as suggested below seems like a sensible solution. --Tataral (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Lincoln Project, this is not an independently notable pejorative, it only received coverage for a brief period of time when the currently not-looking too stable Lincoln Project used it in their ads. As a concept it is far better covered on the main Lincoln Project article, there is not enough here for a WP:SPLIT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a nonsense term used in a political ad by the Lincoln Project and some of its its members. It caught media attention for approximately 5 seconds, and then it vanished from existence. Wholly WP:NOTNEWS, and, as others have said, there's a strong POV to it. (I couldn't help but notice that it's included in the Anti-intellectualism Category for some odd reason). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Lincoln Project as is mentioned there, doesn't appear notable by itself. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:36, 23 February 2021 (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.