Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Republican


 * 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama Republican

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

In the United States people belonging to one party often vote for candidates belonging to another party. This type of article could be written about any candidate in any election, but there is no evidence of lasting notability. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the related page for the same reason:


 * Delete both as neologisms. These are terms that will only be used for this one election, as the nom says there's no evidence of lasting notability. I guess these sorts of things can be notable but only if the labels are relevent in future elections, e.g. Reagan Democrat. But we obviously can't keep articles based on guessing what the future importance of them might be, see WP:NOT. But considering that, a protected redirect for both to United States presidential election, 2008 would be fine. --Rividian (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From the other side of the Atlantic, it seems to me that the issue of "cross-over" voting has been more prominent in this presidential election than in most previously, from Obama's winning of independent votes in the primaries to the Hilary supporter issue in recent days. Hard to say if this will last long, but I'm weakly minded to keep as there is short term notability. Following the election, merging into an election article might be sensible, but I'm reluctant to be defintive now. MikeHobday (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment seems Obamacan (which redirects to this page) might be a notable neologism worthy of an article as it is found in most of the sources. However I only found 'Obama Republican' in one of the sources (only looked in the first 7 or 8)  Gtstricky Talk or C 18:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Obamacon or Obamacan has been thrown around enough in the media as a mention of aisle crossing notable to this election, and Obama in particular.--Loodog (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both They are not terms that have not gained widespread use and, as User:Northwestgnome said, it is common that people belonging to one political party vote for the other party's candidate. At least Reagan Democrats gained a lasting notability and many are still referred to as such. Happyme22 (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both The articles are well-sourced and useful to people following the election. They will also be useful to people in the future studying the history of it. Regardless of who wins, the cross-over voters will play a role (forgive my crystal-ballism please) and will be topic worth studying. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I really can't ignore your "crystal ballism" because your rationale is based upon it: it will be a use to people in the future, cross over voters will play a role, it will be a future topic worth studying... That's all speculation, perhaps excluding cross over voters playing a role (but that is nothing special because cross over voters play a role in every election cycle). Happyme22 (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge (Sort-of) I think List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements should have a section for Democrats and independents while List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008 should have a Republican or independents section. It's an interesting issue every election and right now some names I put on McCain Democrat aren't on his endorsement list. However after those sections are made I think these articles should be deleted. So this is kind of a merge recommendation.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Both Both articles are well sourced, informative, and discuss terms that are fairly widely used.--Mr Beale (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources for the terms being widely used? I only found that Obama used the term in one speech and that the speech has been quoted. Gtstricky Talk or C 20:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's hard to search for the terms. Even placed in quotes "Obama Republican" gets too many things that are essentially "For Obama Republican Jay Finklemeyer's attack ad has..." or whatever. Same with "McCain Democrat." "Obamacan" gets about 14 GNews hits. Unfortunately there isn't the same kind of cute word for "McCain Democrat." "McCainocrat" gets just 2 GNews hits. "Democrats for McCain" gets 21 though and most seem relevant. Still I'd prefer something more like "cross-voting in the 2008 election" or my original idea of merging the two with endorsement lists.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both Satisfies WP:N by multiple independent and reliable sources which use the terms and have substantial discussion of them. Edison2 (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep both  Standard mainstream american political concepts and language. I totally fail to see the point of this nomination. Such crossing over has been a major factor in almost all presidential races. The argument presented by the nom for deletion is in my view an argument for keeping. And of course they will only apply to one election. a US presidential election can safely be predicted to be of enduring notability. We may possibly have too many small articles on individual aspects/events of this campaign, but  these two are not among the ons to be eliminated. DGG (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because crossover voting is a notable concept doesn't we need an article for each term someone has for each type of crossover voting... it's hard to imagine a bunch of disjointed articles serving readers better than one unified article.--Rividian (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We have Party switching in the United States, but these articles aren't really about that. Some of these people may leave their party, but it's far from certain all of them will. Could we have like a Cross-party voting in the United States article? Does any article serve that purpose? (If you look the Reagan Democrat article it doesn't name anyone in specific, but this could)--T. Anthony (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that people can and do cross vote should be explained in the article on political parties in the United States. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, well cited. Consider that this describes about 7,000,000 people for each. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * People with brown hair and green eyes would describe even more people, but it does nothing to make it an encyclopedic article topic. --Rividian (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cited as a coherent topic. Analysis by reliable, second party sources. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Both, in both cases there are reliable sources that define and use the term. Would pass WP:N under those circumstances, in my opinion.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep both They are well-sourced and are about clearly defined, notable (and important) topics. Borock (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both Checking out the sources these are clearly notable topics, especially "Obama Republican." (The sources for "McCain Democrat" are a bit weaker. Even though there seem to be just as many of them, they have gotten less press coverage.) Redddogg (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both. Existing sources are sufficient to establish notability of the subjects.Biophys (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Of the "sources" listed to define the terms, only one addresses the terms in any significant way for each article.  The mere number of sources does not make an article well cited.  In this case I think we may be stretching "reliable" a bit too far: personal and political blogs, a guest editorial...  A transcript in which Obama himself is the only one mentioning any of the terms.  Mere lists of Democrats who support McCain.  Delete until the terms have actually received significant and deep enough coverage that they can be cited and reliably sourced.    user:j    (aka justen)   17:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep both When the Reagan Democrats were found, it was after the Elections. Its too early to write about these group. After the election, I think we will be able to know the power of these group, and how they help the one who is elected president. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both. If crossover voting is common and frequently discussed in all elections (as the Northwestgnome avers), then it is notable.  Seems like a no-brainer.  It seems especially relevant in this election, where both campaigns are actively and openly trying to poach each other's traditional constituencies.  Demesne Lord (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both as notable, well-sourced, and unoriginally researched. Any issues with the quality of sources, WP:CURRENT violations, etc, are all reasons for cleanup, not deletion. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 21:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per T. Anthony. If either (or both) prove to have lasting notability beyond the election season, they can be re-instated as separate articles.--JayJasper (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both Multiple reliable sources for the concepts. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly Keep both. It is definitely very notable in this election and can't be diminished as a usual "cross-over-voting". On top now, with McCain's VP-pick of Sarah Palin this articles has the potential to gain even more importance. Referring to an entry above: It would be rather a "Crystal ball" assuming less importance in the near and far future. Besides that, one positive part of WP is the comprehensiveness unlike "standard" encyclopedias can offer and counters for certain unreliability do to the constant changes. Do we really want to scrap one of our unique advantages? --Floridianed (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * '''Delete both as unnecessary, non-notable neologisms. Superm401 - Talk 14:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both per Rividian. Recentist US-centricity that's got well out of hand. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both Certainly, I've been seeing these terms increasingly being used by the media. Although they are neologisms, how else can you put it? New terms pop up all the time. Just because they are new, that doesn't mean that we should exclude them from Wikipedia. - XX55XX (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both Well cited informative information -- penubag  (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Maybe add a mention in Aisle_(political_term) under "Crossing the aisle". Horselover Frost (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both. The phrase "Obama Republican" is in widespread use (unlike say "Kerry Republican" in 2004) and the underlying concept is much discussed for this election.   That is less true for "McCain Democrat", but I think in the interest of parity we should keep that article too; having just one may implicitly seem partisan or POV.  Crust (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both as they are an important phenomenon of these elections. I wouldn't have found information about it if there hadn't been dedicated articles. Plus, they are concise, neutral, clear and well-cited.--Gogu (talk) 22:00, 3 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.