Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McCain-Lieberman Party


 * 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. Yank sox  18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

McCain-Lieberman Party
Non notable fictional concept. Certainly a neologism, created August 10th acording to the sourcing. waffle iron talk 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NOT. The article is based on pure speculation by a single person with little or not factual information to support such speculation. --Bobblehead 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Moderate until such time as the subject exists IRL. Argyriou 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am new to the Wikipedia world, but I was anxious to get started with the McCain-Lieberman Party concept. It is a term used now by many political junkies and political scientists, but in a casual way. I know from conversation and blogging that it is frequently discussed. The exact nature or definition of the subject is often vague to people who are not regular political junkies, that's why I think it's important to not delete this article. I know from the Sitemeter records on my old blog that after Lieberman lost and Brooks wrote this column, many people googled the phrase. However, they were met with countless blog entries that are vague and not neutral. This isn't a phrase that is simply secluded to David Brooks. After he used it multiple times on television and in speeches, it became part of the political science colloquial conversation. For instance, I had the good fortune of having lunch with Mr. Brooks, Clarence Paige, and a few political scientists at the University of Illinois and during that conversation the phrase was used multiple times. The article is not meant as a prediction or a "crystal ball." Rather it is simply to define a term that is becoming more frequently used. Simply google it as proof. This topic would be a very important contribution to Wiki. Please reconsider your nomination for deletion.--Onemanbandbjm 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If the article is used "simply to define a term," then it does not belong on Wikipedia, which is not a dictionary. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism. Comment to Onemandband: Unfortunately, this term is very new - only verifiably (that is, not used exclusively in blogs) five days old to my knowledge and research.  That makes it a neologism, something that Wikipedia does not allow.  If the phrase stays around for a while, however, it may become notable and deserve its own article.  However, there's no way to tell right now whether this term will even live out the month.  The important question to ask is: Will this be remembered in 25, 50, or 100 years?  If this phrase is only around for a few months, it certainly won't be remembered, and thus does not merit an article in the encyclopedia.  Thank you for your enthusiasm, though, and feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you ever need any assistance.  Srose   (talk)  22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Argyriou. Clearly a metaphorical concept at this point. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 22:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete-Onemanbandbjm, why don't you keep the article as a draft connected to your userpage. As the phrase grows out of it's infancy into more wide spread use, you can then transfer it back into the mainspace. 205.157.110.11 22:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Defense The term has been used by Brooks and others for over a year now. Here is a link to a May 6th, 2005 transcript of NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Andrew Sullivan also published an article in the UK Times about a "2008 McCain-Lieberman ticket" Here it is discussed in Washington Monthly Here it is mentioned in an ABC News story Here in the Hartford Courant As I explained in the main article, Brooks finally solidified the term with his column. Perhaps we could make it a current event topic and then you can determine whether it is getting enough hits and reader time to warrant becoming a permanent article. Or some kind of disclaimer would also be acceptable. This is a concept which will become increasingly prevalent as Lieberman runs as an independent and with the chance of McCain losing the presidential primary. I don't think there can be any harm in Wikipedia defining a term that is new, in fact, that is part of its duty. Wikipedia is meant to be flexible and malleable. It is supposed to be better than the other Encyclopedias in that it is on the cutting edge of human knowledge. Neologisms are part of its value. When something is published in the New York Times, the world's largest newspaper, it isn't exactly obscure. It clearly doesn't just define the term, it explains its history and provides outside research from Pew as to its validity.--Onemanbandbjm 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there can be any harm in Wikipedia defining a term that is new, in fact, that is part of its duty. &mdash; Please read our No original research policy.  Please also read Five pillars to see what Wikipedia's duty actually is. Uncle G 01:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This is clearly original research. Brooks was criticizing the concept as a workable political party - he wasn't "solidifying the term". The Note and the Hartford Courant articles are reporting on the Brooks AYou're jumping the gun here - as others have pointed out, Wikipedia is not a rumor site. An article such as this could lead some people to believe that such a party does in fact exist, when it clearly does not. Please consider the suggestion to keep it as a draft in your own user space, at least for now.  Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per above.  The idea of keeping it as a draft on the user page until later has merit. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Defense People will only think it's a real party if they don't read the first line which specifically uses the word FICTIONAL. It's true that Brooks is critical of the possibility toward the end of his article, and that can certainly be mentioned in the article. But he is hoping for the possibility. If it turns out that the concept dies as a means to describing America's political middle then we can delete the article. But why do it when thousands of people are looking for information on the Internet about this subject? If my article sounds like a rumor or a prediction then that can be changed, I did not intend for it to be that. It is more of a political junky's way of succinctly referring to America's political middle and of identifying its current leaders. I'm confused here, is Wikipedia running out of server space? I mean, how many neologisms and often irrelevant articles exist on Wikipedia? How many that will only be relevant for a year or less. Perhaps a few million? One way to solidify this concept is precisely by putting it in Wikipedia, it has become that influential in our society. As examples, Baseball Baby provides many through articles he has written, "Armstrong Gun, FACEP, ACEP, J-pouch, W-pouch, Jesse L. Reno, Mount Vernon Arsenal, Ovingdean, Brian Britt, Pi Alpha Alpha, San Solomon Springs, National Association for Ambulatory Urgent Care, Stork enamine alkylation, Cixiidae, Joe Zewe, Odontogriphus, Order of Daedalians, South Side-Baker Historic District" Or from Srose, "Gustav Suits, Juhan Liiv, Madis Kõiv, Mart Saar, Mats Traat, Nikolai Baturin, Peeter Sauter, Ene Mihkelson, Elo Viiding, George R. Austin Intermediate School, Wildlife biologists, Isla Iguana Wildlife Refuge, Saddleback clownfish, Juno Februata, Abtu, Fastachee, Ahayuta, Ene Ergma - only possible with the help of Avjoska! :) --Onemanbandbjm 23:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One way to solidify this concept is precisely by putting it in Wikipedia, it has become that influential in our society. &mdash; Being a platform for the promotion of novel concepts is precisely what Wikipedia is not for. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  If you want to create a solid definition for a novel concept out of thin air, your own web site is the place, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Uncle G 01:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonexistent reality or non-notable fiction. Whichever. Fan-1967 00:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Defense To clarify: This is not proposed as a reality. This is not proposed as a prediction. This is a methaphorical concept used to succinctly describe America's moderate middle. And it more specifically refers to a particular iteration of that middle, namely, the McCain-Lieberman version of it. On the official Wikipedia page, What Wikipedia is not nowhere does it say that such a metaphorical concept cannot be published, thus that objection does not stand and that is the only objection that matters since that is the intent of the article. If the editors feel that I misled readers by making predictions or creating reality then I will be happy to edit the original article. Until then I would appreciate an official citation in published Wikipedia rules as to what precisely this type of article violates. This fictional concept is more notable than probably 50% of all fictional concept articles on Wikipedia, so that argument also does not stand. Please show me a precise citation as to what is being objected to. I feel that the original editor made a comment and his posterity have simply fallen in line with his comments: Groupthink. --Onemanbandbjm 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "This is a methaphorical concept used to succinctly describe America's moderate middle." However it's not a well-known or widespread concept. It is a column less than a week old, that has not achieved currency. "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." Also, "Wikpedia is not a soapbox." It is not Wikipedia's purpose to spread or promote new concepts; that's what blogs are for. Fan-1967 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Defense After Brooks and other have been discussing the idea for over a year it means that my article is no longer a publishing of original thought. I'm not inventing anything here. I'm reporting on the facts of the situation, describing the concept, and providing broader analysis(the Pew data). I'm not using this as a soapbox, if I were the text would read, "Centrism is ostensibly the best political philosophy that anyone can hold." Who's next? --Onemanbandbjm 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Brooks comes up with neologisms like this almost everytime he opens his mouth -- they aren't encyclopedic unless and until others (in significant numbers) begin to repeat them (as with Bobo). RadicalSubversiv E 02:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Defense First, that accusation is a complete exaggeration. Second, please again show me where that is listed on Wiki's official page defining what is acceptable and what is not? I will not relent until someone proves to me that this concept goes beyond the bounds of what is accepted practice. What you all think should be accepted practice simply isn't good enough to satisfy me. I operate by the rules.--Onemanbandbjm 03:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Avoid neologisms --waffle iron talk 03:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, a neologism about a nonexistent political alliance. The entire article is essentially a restatement and summary of Brooks' beliefs on partisanship and has little to do with its purported subject. Andrew Levine 14:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, maintain on user page. User may re-create article in one year...if the term has caught on, there will be no controversy. (My guess is it will only "stick" if McCain or Lieberman has a significant presence in this year's election. The similarity of their views/politics is more coincidence born of current politics, than substantial alignment of views.)
 * Delete or redirect to Brooks. & in any case fine to write a couple of paragraphs about this in Brooks' article, but don't blow it out of proportion. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the page for moderate. Some of what's here can also be moved there. Mr_Beale 4:47. 22 August 2006
 * Merge and redirect to moderate. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:22, 23 August 2006 (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.