Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingnut (politics)


 * 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. Consensus is, this is more than a definition Star   Mississippi  02:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Wingnut (politics)

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

Delete per WP:DICDEF. This was a neologism with no enduring notability. It saw a brief period of usage in the early 2000s. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Absent some manner of historical or cultural context, I think this is a subject for Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary redirect per WP:NOTDICT. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article has been, and is being, expanded, and is far from a DICDEF now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also rather absurd to say that "wingnut" has "no enduring notability", considering that Safire first wrote about in in 2004, and economist Paul Krugman used it in his NYT column as recently as 2015 (in the form of "wingnut welfare"), and it was used in a WaPo column in 2018 . Cites can be found up to 2021  (not suitable as a WP ref, but it's still a usage). Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Refs now from 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020 and 2021 - so much for not having legs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is still a dictionary definition; it just has some more citations of definitions now than it used to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Some more usage examples have been added to the article, but my recommendation remains the same. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DICDEF. Skyerise (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO CLOSER: The above editor brought a quickly closed complaint abut me to AN/I, in which he issued a WP:PA against me, "BeyondMyKen is on one of his OCD kicks again:" had edits to an article I've heavily contributed to reverted by an admin and another editor for being WP:POINTy,,  went to an editor I'm in a content dispute with on this very article to offer themselves as an "ally", and has been warned by two admins on their talk page for their battleground behavior in regard to me. ,  All this in the last 4 days. I don't believe that their !vote here can be taken at face value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO CLOSER: same !vote as I would have made regardless. Skyerise (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep There has been significant coverage and analysis of the term, not just use of the term, by writers like Safire (twice), Herszenhorn and Avlon. The term is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * you should know that notability does not guarantee a standalone article. We have WP:NOT for a reason, and it is a policy. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 23:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is longer and more in-depth than would be found in any dictionary, print or online, including Wikimedia's. It is, in fact, an encyclopedia article, and not a dictionary definition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I agree with Beyond My Ken. This encyclopedia article is currently far more comprehensive than a dictionary definition, and discusses the concept and not just the word, in detail. I do not know how much you know about William Safire but I followed his career for nearly four decades. I disliked him initially as a Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew speechwriter, but he redeemed himself with 30 years of coverage of the English language for the New York Times. Safire did not write dictionary definitions. He examined and analyzed and documented the history and connotations words in far more depth than any dictionary, even the Oxford English Dictionary (which I own a print copy of), would ever do. The policy you quote does not rule out articles about terms but rather articles that consist only of dictionary definitions without encyclopedic content, and the policy specifically mentions Truthiness as a contrary example. There is ample precedent for keeping this article. We have Category:Pejorative terms for people which has 257 articles, and there are subcategories such as Category:Class-related slurs with 54 articles and Category:Ethnic and religious slurs with 151 articles. In this case, an entire book called Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America has been published in 2010, which is referenced in the article. What is the basis for deleting this article about a notable pejorative when we have hundreds of other articles about notable pejoratives? Cullen328 (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete/Wiktionary redirect - Haven't dug into this too deeply, but it seems like "Wingnut" is a classic neologism that's mainly used pejoratively in Op-eds. It's not clear to me that the term has gained any direct coverage in mainstream RS's. NickCT (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the term is pejorative, it's hardly surprising that its primary usage is in op-eds and opinion columns. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. But op-eds are less reliable sources, right? And it seems we're relying on them to establish notability in this case. NickCT (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not when the ref is offered not for the truth of the statements made, but for the existence of the usages shown in them. It's very much like the standards used in (American) courts.  And the Safire is the opinion of a verified expert - he's not using the terms, he's explaining the usage of the terms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is sorta challenging to understand. I agree the word "exists" and is used, but that doesn't mean it's a notable topic worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Lots of words and neologisms exist but aren't notable subjects.
 * The Safire piece doesn't give the term direct coverage. Notable topics receive direct, detailed and significant coverage in reliable sources. Safire's piece may be RS, but it's not direct, detailed, or, by itself, significant. NickCT (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep well sourced-informative article.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just want to point out the changes that have been made to the article since it was AfD'd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:DICDEF and WP:NOT. While it did receive a WP:REFBOMB recently, if you take a look at those refs they are largely by the same few writers. Which is a very clear indication that the term is not wide spread, or as mentioned above, does not have legs. It also relies way to much on actual dictionaries, which is a big red flag. It is spread thin to give the impression of notability, which this clearly lacks. In fact it just looks like a NPOV coatrack at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the addition of 12K worth of textual material was in no way a "REFBOMB". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 *  Note: Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC) 
 * Strong keep. The nominator wanted "some manner of historical cultural context". How about: https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-brief-history-of-wingnuts-in-america-from-george-washington-to-woodstock &mdash; and in that context, WP:DICDEF is irrelevant to this topic. The article could be improved, but the notability of the topic is obvious, and the recent citations added should alleviate concerns about whether this article is deletable. Incompleteness is not a valid reason to delete, and this article is not incomplete, it goes into far more depth than any dictionary ever would. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is a highly relevant quote from DICDEF: Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Historical relevance aside, DICDEF doesn't matter if the WP:WORDISSUBJECT. That Wing Nut (Safire, 2004) and Wingnuts: Extremism in the Age of Obama (Avlon, 2014) both address the topic in so-titled works is evidence of notability for me. I would like to see more sources, and without checking the coverage of the word itself in the texts I won't be more emphatic than a weak keep, but I see no reason to delete at this point. — HTGS (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. No need of deleting the article; moreover Improvement is needed who has expertise in this field should be notified. ... २ तकर पेप्सी   talk  19:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - better than a WP:DICDEF, this article discusses the origin of the neologism and its use in political writing and cultural impact. It may not be in prominent use any more but notability is not temporary. Other issues can be dealt with through regular editorial processes; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NTEMP, While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion. NTEMP is not a rational for keeping or deleting. The issues are its reliance on primary sources (like dictionaries), the same authors over and over(lack of wide spread coverage), and outside that small group of authors only usage or passing mention(not direct coverage). Which is the reason for this AFD and not something covered by WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. PackMecEng (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has clearly been expanded well beyond a mere dictionary definition.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe this is beyond a dictionary defitition now. If it was used several years ago, notability does not expire. The article is not refbombed; refbombing is when several (questionable-quality) references are stacked onto a small amount of text, such as this: [1][2][3][4][5][6] There might still be some concerns about primary vs secondary sources in this article, but not quite enough to warrant deletion. Geschichte (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. WP:REFBOMB it is getting a bunch of sources to try and establish notability of a topic even if those sources are not great. Basically trying to puff up its notability. The number of sources to the same author or two and all the links to primary sources is an example of that. Per refbomb A common form of citation overkill is loading up an article with sources without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. It is in reguards to the article as a whole rather than a specific small amount of text or sentence. PackMecEng (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is not a dictionary definition, it's an article on the usage of a political term. I think there is remove for improvement but that is true for the majority of articles on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What should be removed for improvement? PackMecEng (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.