Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republan


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Republan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod of unsourced article. Web search finds this term in the form of misspellings or as a derogatory and politically charged term on chat sites favored by groups opposed to the Republican Party (United States). Delete as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Verifiability unless sufficient reliable sources are produced to allow for a sourced and non-politically charged article are provided. Allen3 talk 19:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been used enough and for a long time to warrant notability: see and  for usage of the term in newspapers. Claritas (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I never claimed the term has not been used, only that there is no evidence of its being used by a reliable source. Unless there has been a major change to Wikipedia policy in recent days, letters to the editor and blog entries (such as your examples) are considered to be self-published and questionable sources and thus not suitable for the basis of an article. --Allen3 talk 20:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Pro Use```` As the entering author into Wikipedia of this term, I find including it as a valid use of words in use though not a dictionary use. It is as valid as nigga or nigger both of which are in Wikipedia, and though offensive are included for completeness, no? Regards pabobfin ````


 * Delete - attempt to publicize a nonceword by the self-admitted coiner of the non-notable term. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Pro Use I did not coin the word, but have used it in context since discovering it. I only "authored" the entry into Wikipedia, not the term. I had Realized that the word Democrat Party (phrase) was not refuted in any publications I could find on Wikipedia, and took it in hand to rectify that.  It is not a dictionary, I agree, but when a word gets into language, such as nigga etc., it seems fair game to be in the encyclopedia too.  Thanks  pabobfin


 * Delete A google search only shows 385 hits which discounting misspellings seem to be exclusive to several web forums. The assertion that it is the equivalent to "Democrat" doesn't seem to be rooted in any known usage of the english usage. The suffixes -an and -ic both mean "pertaining to" but there is no "Republ" party.--Savonneux (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Pro-Keep Results 1 - 10 of about 2,720 for republan. (0.40 seconds) Google search today. 2720 is a far cry from 385 you claim.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.124.145.4 (talk • contribs) 22:32, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this IP address is Pabobfin (although the phrasing makes me think it's possible). If it is, please note that you cannot !vote more than once. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete While the term may be used occasionally, there appear to be no reliable sources that discuss the term in depth. Sources would have to be about the word itself, not simply mention it as a neologism. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal I believe that the writer of the NY Times Opinion would disagree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabobfin (talk • contribs) 1 May 2010
 * Allen3 already addressed this "rebuttal" above. That source doesn't meet WP:RS; it's a letter to the editor, not a fact-checked article. Are there any sources that discuss the term Republan as the focus of a full-length article? -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete no use outside of the blogosphere, and its not common there either. the logical corollaries given as arguments for keep are fundamentally flawed. for its use be comparable to "democrat party", the democratic party and senior elected officials would have to have used it. they dont. and the word itself is not the logical corollary to "democrat party". the logical corollary would be "republic party", which has an old fashioned ring to it that fits them well. sounds like a fly by night insurance company trying to sound legit.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal While I agree that the fly by night insurance sounds more likely for the use of Republic, that the word has existed outside the blogosphere by print in the New York Times.  ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabobfin (talk • contribs) 1 May 2010
 * This example in and of itself does not establish notability, as its only a letter to the editor referring to an unsourced fact. if in fact the democratic digest's suggestion in the 50's gained any attention, then it may have been notable at that time. notable once, notable always. i did a quick gsearch, cannot find evidence supporting this as a notable use, though the digest was a somewhat big deal at the time. if someone can research paper records and show this was a word commonly used by the digest for, say, a year or so, i will change my !vote. i cant do the research myself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete That it has to be explained whenever it's brought up is a clue as to it's lack of notability. Short version-- in U.S. politics, if the Democratic Party must be referred to as the "Democrat" party, then the Republican Party should be referred to as the "Republan" party.  You remove the letters 'i' and 'c'-- Democratic, Democrat; Republican, Republan.  Get it?  Republan instead of Republ-IC-an.  Pretty clever huh. Mandsford (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  15:58, 2 May 2010 (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.