Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republicrat (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Republicrat
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I think this needs a renomination. The first nomination was speedy-kept because it was made by an indef-blocked user. The only references are GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS. Will the stupidity never end? Anyway, I did some digging and the only hits I found for this term were trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just a definition of a portmanteau, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, some extremely tenuous pop-culture references and some google search results may demonstrate that these terms get used - but they don't add up to any actual notability from the point of view of an encyclopedia. All the attempts at making this encyclopedic in the article seem to be unsalvageably original research unless there's some substantial coverage I'm missing. The sourceable content of this article doesn't seem to extend much beyond what one would expect in a dictionary. ~ mazca  talk 22:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I fail to see the notability of this article, nor do I see how Google search results are valid under WP:RS. WP:NOT comes to mind as well. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 23:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I was going to nominate this myself, but I was too much on the fence. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Google search results sourcing is a fixable problem, as demonstrated, and thus not a relevant issue. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, keep. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I use the term myself, but this is essentially a dictionary definition in the final analysis. Neologism. Carrite (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wiktionary - It could become Encyclopeda ready in future
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Wiktionary it (and the variations mentioned as alternative titles) - there's nothing substantive here as far as I can see, just a description of a word, its definition and usage. TheGrappler (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per excellent rescue by Uncle G in current version, per The Heymann Standard, per WP:N and WP:RS, and by Erpert's change to a Keep vote. I strongly urge the closer to consider the changes made during the discussion that address the nominator's argument as well as the wikitionary and delete arguments. The Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang is from an unimpeachable publisher. The article could use pruning, but that's cleanup, not AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 18:19, 22 August 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.