Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republicans pounce


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a consensus to Keep this article but also opinions that sourcing should be improved. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Republicans pounce

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is essentially about a handful of disconnected opinion pieces, with only one or two non-opinion pieces briefly criticizing them. There's almost no non-opinion coverage of the topic, and most of the individual opinion pieces are only using the term briefly while focusing on a more specific issue. It also over-represents the views of a tiny number of news outlets; the opinion pieces are lopsided representations of the Washington Examiner and the National Review. It's not appropriate to make a Wikipedia article for every opinion-piece talking point, especially ones that have failed to attract significant secondary or WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Aquillion (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep as the article's creator.
 * There's almost no non-opinion coverage of the topic See these articles which engage in an analysis of the phenomenon itself:
 * When 'conservatives pounce': The right finds its cautionary tale of subtle media bias
 * Tucker Carlson and the oversold ‘Republicans pounce’ complaint
 * When Politicians ‘Pounce’
 * most of the individual opinion pieces are only using the term briefly Clearly not true. There are multiple opinion articles which do not merely use the term, but discuss the overall phenomenon as their primary focus:
 * Republicans pounce!
 * ‘Conservatives Pounce,’ Again
 * When Republicans ‘Pounce’
 * ‘Republicans Pounce’ Coverage Is Toxic to Government Accountability
 * It also over-represents the views of a tiny number of news outlets The "Analysis" section is a fair balance of the opinion sources I found when researching the topic, per WP:DUE. It is not surprising that more right-leaning commentators would discuss this phenomenon than left-leaning ones, nor that their views would appear in prominent right-leaning publications such as National Review and Washington Examiner. The Kevin Drum piece in Mother Jones is the only one I could find from a left-leaning perspective. And in any event, this "overrepresentation" is a content dispute, not a notability one.
 * Regarding WP:SUSTAINED, this Commentary article discussing the phenomenon is from 2015, which is indicative of sustained attention. Astaire (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Conservatism, Politics,  and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The WSJ piece (which you listed as non-opinion) is actually labeled as opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment this article reads more like a defense of the term. It needs more content about its usage, its history, generally the things that would make it notable.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * •Comment I believe this article needs more reliable sources to prove notability if it wants to avoid deletion. Most of the sources were previously opinion pieces from random news websites, and an opinion cannot be considered factual sources. In fact, at one point, there was only a single source that was not an opinion. If actual valid sources could be found, I would not mind the article staying, but not in it’s current state where sources are dubious at best and the term hasn’t really been proven to be an actual notable thing outside of a couple rare “here and there” uses. For now I must support Aquillion’s AFD request, but it appears people are actively trying to edit the article to make it better and should be given more time first. Tritario (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep As the editor who added a "This article has been mentioned by a media organization" template. As I said on the article's talk page: "Since the creation of the article by Astaire some of the cites have been deleted, but the sources actually exist and I believe their existence contributes to notability. Of course cited articles are opinion pieces since it's an article about opinions so I don't see what policy or guideline that objection is based on." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Would this make a better entry to Wikitionary? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Dunno, I don't use Wiktionary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how it can misrepresent publications overall when the authors are all individually named. Potential alternate notable opinions include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. On the surface it is a bit long for an article based on 3 sources, but reading through it doesn't stretch them too far. Editors should continue to be conscious that this is a relatively thin article and should allow any new sources that appear to substantially impact our treatment of its subject. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The idea is that the Wikieditor shoudn't be the one to string it all together. There should be at least one article, preferably more, that mentions these people collectively and says "Yes, that's the same thing." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep:If a major paper like The Journal uses this term as a headline, there is little doubt that this is notable and that a Wikipedia page has merit. Quote Veteran (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:HEADLINES, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I may be somewhat biased on this specific issue, because I have a draft on my computer of an article very similar to this one, but I will say this nonetheless. As a few people have articulated above, it seems to have some pretty wide coverage, and meta-discourse topics like this can certainly be encyclopedic if they're written well.
 * jp×g🗯️ 20:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment This afd has got press: "Thankfully, the farce has reached critical mass. Savvy social media users have caught wind of Wikipedia entry, and it’s now under review for deletion." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2024 (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.