Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolter (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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolter (politics)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ this seems to me to be more of a stub concept than a dictionary definition. SportingFlyer talk 12:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bkissin - I can't find many instances in which this is used, and articles like this: [1] discuss a different concept. SportingFlyer talk 23:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the listed sources seem to mention the term "Bolting", and the concept of party-switching in the United States is already covered in its own article. Bkissin (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination makes a vague wave to a policy which is inappropriate and not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is a dictionary definition, it would be a reason to delete. SportingFlyer talk 23:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't. WP:DICDEF is commonly misunderstood because people don't read it. Its main point is that we should cover topics by their meaning not the particular words used to describe them. It's an argument for merging synonyms and is not a reason to delete anything at all. Andrew D. (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, the above comment is frankly shocking coming from someone as experienced as you. If you have an interpretation of policy that is not "common", then even if you consider it to be the "correct" interpretation of the current wording of the policy page, it is not an enforceable policy. Wikipedia policy is dictated by common practice, not the other way round. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't a common term (I don't even see evidence of it being an uncommon term) in modern American politics; in the references regarding 1900-era politics it's used as a descriptive word rather than an epithet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.