Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuckservative

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 Trainwreck. Far too many canvassed/SPA !votes, poor-quality arguments, etc. to derive any sort of consensus from.

For formality, this closure is a no consensus/WP:NPASR. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Cuckservative

Cuckservative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Just another neologism thrown around on a couple of websites and buzzed around a bit, just in time for election season. Not a notable term, not a deeply discussed one, not one that needs to have an article in an online encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, as it is little more than a Twitter hashtag. Not notable, not encyclopedic, not of any importance. Eclipsoid (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A Twitter hashtag referenced by media including the Washington Post '''tAD''' (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Other hashtags, like #YesAllWomen have been kept. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:UNENCYC, and WP:JNN, you can't just say "little more than a Twitter hashtag", as that doesn't refer to any real reason to delete or keep the article. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete not even yet an ounce of notability. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Not notable, saying "no notability" is not a good AfD argument. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Not remotely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Not notable, just saying that something isn't notable is bad practice at AfD. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Not when the article fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject, it isn't. Hectoring contributors who's posts you don't like on the other hand is definitely not good practice at an AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The neologism is cited in notable and reliable sources like the Washington Post and New Republic. Simply saying 'not notable' doesn't counter the fact that the subject is has been written about in multiple clearly notable sources. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Could you explain how me "hectoring" you is bad practice at AfD? All I appear to be doing is rebutting your arguments for deletion. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No, what you appear to be doing is making multiple postings saying exactly the same thing. And to expand on my reasoning, I see no evidence that this particular neologism has any long-term significance. It is common enough for multiple media sources to pick up on the same new word, hashtag or whatever and run a story or two on it, only to forget about it a week or two later. That isn't an indication of notability in relation to the timescale at which an encyclopaedia should operate. Wikipedia is a long-term project, not a mirror of this week's media buzzwords. We leave that to Twitter. If there is actual subject matter at the bottom of this story, it will come from sources looking at long-term trends, and possibly at the significance of language in what appears to be a rift within the American political right. Words rarely make good subjects for encyclopaedic articles, and when they do it is because they have been discussed in depth over a considerable timescale in sources not concerned solely with filling today's webpage with something different from yesterday's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have struck my delete !vote, given the number of new sources now available. I am as yet unconvinced that the term will have any real long-term significance, but given the way that WP:NOTNEWS is routinely ignored, there seems little point in actively opposing the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NOTDICTIONARY. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The article is not a dictionary definition. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:VAGUEWAVE, you can't point at a policy, you need to show how the policy applies. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable enough. Coderzombie (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:JNN, stating that something is "not notable" with no extra input is a useless tautology, you're stating that this article is not notable because you said it isn't. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't denote a real political phenomenon, concept, or movement, so you're left with the insult, which belongs in a dictionary if anywhere. Unless you think Conservatives who other conservatives dislike is a topic worthy of an article. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As an English **** who still doesn't want to impose prescriptive grammar on anyone, I'll just make a redirect from Conservatives whom other conservatives dislike to yours, Colapeninsula. :) Drmies (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • We have a whole category of articles on insults. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: Illustrates a civil war between neo- and paleoconservatism that will be taught in schools in 50 years time '''tAD''' (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Even if that dispute would be written about 50 years from now (pretty conjectural), that doesn't mean that therefore this term, whose illustrative value remains to be seen, is therefore notable. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The term is clearly notable right now and has received a rate of coverage (several new articles per day, on average) that surpass many other articles that have survived AfD. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The question isn't whether it's notable right now; it's whether it's notable. That requires sustained coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
        • By this definition you created yourself, no recent event could be notable. Denarivs (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Few are, but those are events, not neologisms anyway. Neologisms are much more likely to (a) overlap other topics and (b) have a short lifespan in the press. The only time we keep articles about recent events is, more or less, if precedent tells us coverage will continue. There's not really the same kind of precedent for neologisms because there's no neologism equivalent of the World Series, significant natural disaster, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• This has received media coverage in specialised political circles, the same as Feminist Hulk, another thing on the Internet that 99.99999999999999999% of the Earth's population have never heard of, received media coverage in specialised feminist circles. And that article survives AfD like a Sacred Cow. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep It has been getting a lot of attention recently, including many mentions in mainstream press outlets.I would think Wikipedia would like to be on top of this.--Cartamandua (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC) — Cartamandua (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep, recently covered in the Washington Post, so not at all confined to minor web sources. FitzhughIII (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC) — FitzhughIII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• There is now a Washington Post source, one that Feminist Hulk never had... '''tAD''' (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - Washington Post describes it as a larger phenomenon, even if the word itself is new: "'Cuckservative' is a frame that might be bigger than its founders intended". Smetanahue (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. It's a week old, wrapped up in a bunch of other far-right political concepts, and shows no indication of lasting significant coverage of the term. It may be worth noting that the Washington Post connects this to Gamergate, which means we might see more SPAs (already two above). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Notability is not temporary, and the newness of a concept is no reason to delete it. We have a section called, "In The News", for starters. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Notability is not temporary - I do not think this means what you think it means. WP:NTEMP is more or less an explanation of why we require lasting coverage, not a justification to keep something based on coverage over a short time. Indeed, that section not only references the general notability guideline, which requires persistent coverage, but also ends with a line about Wikipedia being a "lagging indicator of notability" and explaining "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • An topic's relation to conservative political views does not make it invalid as an article. Such a statement implicitly suggests that far-right concepts are unworthy of Wikipedia articles. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • That's twice on this page you've misrepresented someone's argument to try to insinuate that there's some anti-conservative agenda going on here. Nobody has said its relation to conservative political concepts makes it invalid. It's that it's wrapped up with other concepts and is not a clearly defined subject beyond those which we already cover elsewhere. It's a very typical problem with neologisms and this is a pretty typical example of an article that should be deleted on that basis. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I was not restating an argument, and in fact it is you who have misrepresented my post. Again, difficulty defining a word or concept is a challenge to be overcome, not a cause for deletion. Denarivs (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: I wouldn't be opposed to a Delete/Redirect to RINO#Cuckservative. There was already a section about it there. I copied the lead, more or less, from the current version of the article people have been working on along with a few of the sources, so merge shouldn't be necessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Washington Post describes it as a larger phenomenon, even if the word itself is new. DemitreusFrontwest (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait, DemitreusFrontwest and Smetanahue, so one single article makes for encyclopedic notability? That's easy. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It started being noticed at more specified sites like The Daily Beast, The New Republic (liberal) and Hot Air (conservative), now it is in a mainstream source '''tAD''' (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • describes it as a larger phenomenon - If by this you mean it's saying that it's used in multiple kinds of ways and ties in with multiple agendas, groups, and identities, then yes. What that means is it's a poorly defined term that references concepts for which we already have articles. For example, Identitarian movement is one the Post connects it to. What it isn't saying is that "cuckservative" is itself a larger phenomenon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Difficulty in defining a term does not make it unworthy of a Wikipedia article. In addition, notable and reliable sources such as the TNR article have in fact suggested that 'cuckservative' is emblematic of larger phenomenon in conservative politics. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for now... it may be too early to tell whether or not the term will "catch", but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it did. BGManofID (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That is an argument for deletion, not for keeping. We don't create articles because we think that the topic might become notable later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Strange sense of logic, there. I know you are voting for deletion, but if the term does take off, the article will have to be re-made. BGManofID (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. Cloudchased (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• One of the world's leading think tanks is now writing about the word '''tAD''' (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDIC. There simply isn't enough material out there about this neologism to justify an encyclopedia article. There's no evidence that this word has any staying power. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The term enjoys articles in numerous and multiple reliable sources such as the New Republic, the Washington Post, the Daily Caller, the Daily Banter, the Cato Institute, Red State, Breitbart, the Daily Beast, and the Week. All of these are mainstream, reliable, and notable second party sources. Simply saying "there isn't enough material out there" doesn't counter the fact that there is objectively a bevy of articles on the subject. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC) — Denarivs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. I'm now less convinced that deletion of this article is the best outcome for our readers. Should any one of the Republican candidates even mention the word 'cuckold' during Thursday's debate, we'll see another round of news articles on the term. While it is undoubtedly a neologism, the sources go into a fair amount of detail on its meaning, usage, and political context. The racial connotations at play here also make it relevant to broader race relations in the US and the Republican Party's ongoing efforts to negotiate its racist fringe. gobonobo ^{+ c} 13:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep 'Cuckservative' has received significant coverage in a variety of mainstream notable sources across the political spectrum. The Washington Post, Daily Beast, Daily Caller, Breitbart, and New Republic have all written on the term. Right now, 'cuckservative' is substantially more notable and better sourced than many other Wikipedia articles, and its quality and notability are very likely to improve given that the page is barely 24 hours old. The article itself is well-written and Wikipedia should continue to serve its role as a third party review of reliable sources. Denarivs (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that's nonsense. Breitbart is not a source for anything except for filth; the others, that's chatty election coverage. The Cato blog post doesn't even discuss the term. And if we are to accept a blog like Hot Air, let's really accept them--"The pejorative du jour on social media these days is “cuckservative.”" We shouldn't be doing mots du jour. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • This 'objection' boils down to "I don't think conservative media sources are valid" and "these sources that you never mentioned aren't very good". TNR and the Washington Post are objectively mainstream reliable sources and provide a higher level of notability than many other Wikipedia articles enjoy. 'Cuckservative' is a clearly notable word and should be included in Wikipedia. Denarivs (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Please read more carefully. Breitbart is crap not because it's conservative, but because it's crap. It's not acceptable as a reliable source here. WP:RS is policy. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
        • You can't just claim that a mainstream and well regarded news site with paid journalistic staff is 'crap'. In addition, a variety of other clearly reliable sources also exist. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia has previously ruled that the horrible gossip column Gawker is a 'reputable' source, so for as long as the base of the floor is disintegrating and all journalistic integrity is being thrown out thew window, Breitbart is an acceptable source if Gawker Media (or any of its subsidiaries) are. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep as BuzzFeed now considers it to "the GamerGate of the conservative internet". Also, it is on the "cusp of the mainstream political conversation." "Not notable enough" is a useless argument, see WP:JNN. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete, absolutely no coverage for 4 entire days, seems to be a twitter hashtag that was popular for a few days then died off. #YesAllWomen was popular for a few months, which is why it is notable. If we see cuckservative get mentioned again at the debate, it'll be notable. It's not notable though. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep It's been pointed out already that popular hashtags have received their own entries. I'd build on that by noting that, unlike, for example, YesAllWomen, cuckservative also stands just fine on its own as a noun-usable neologism. In that respect it's much more than just a trending hashtag. Also, discussions of whether or not it'll "take off" seem a bit belated, as I initially came to this page looking for an un-slanted etymology after seeing "cuckservative" used in 3 different places over the course of about 2 hours of web browsing (admittedly this is a subjective experience, but The Daily Caller, for example, isn't exactly some obscure blog).71.174.125.144 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — 71.174.125.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep: The term has already been widely covered in a broad spectrum of media outlets.

• Hashtag is soaring,
• conservative Washington Post dedicated an entire article to it
• plus conservative Breitbart: article
• plus liberal Salon: article
• plus center-right The Daily Caller: article
• plus libertarian Taki's Magazine: article
• and so do dissident right websites like American Renaissance ([http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/what-is-a-cuckservative/ article]), The Occidental Observer [article) and VDARE (article) and many others Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Hashtag is now fading according to your own link. I highly doubt the term will have any lasting impact. NotJim99 (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. American media outlets are going to cover every belch and fart within a hundred feet of everyone associated with a presidential campaign from now till November 2016. We don't need individual articles for every one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The term is only tangentially related to the electoral cycle and media coverage has not exclusively focused on its relation to American presidential elections. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly season is starting again... StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 'This is silly' is hardly a justification for deletion. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • That's not the justification given here. I won't presume to speak for a saint, but it seems to me that they're pointing to silly season as a time period in which lots of unimportant things are being thrown around in the US media as if they are important. Today's topic: John Kasich does not seem to care for The Roots. Wanna write an article on Republican candidates and their opinions on rap? Drmies (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Besides mainstream coverage already alluded to above repeatedly, I also would like to point out that it is term of currency in the dissident Alt-right subcultural context that has a strongly defined meaning and is used to describe certain characters of certain reputations--I think it should stay, based on account that we have terms related to other subcultures and what not (such as Bear (gay culture) ). On account of that alone, I think it should stay. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Bear" is written about in real books; this term is not. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • ...The No True Scotsman fallacy, really? Solntsa90 (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
      • That he added an adjective before books doesn't mean it's No True Scotsman. For this to be No True Scotsman, he would have to be responding to an exception to a rule he stated. In other words, if he said "cuckservative is not written about in any books that meet WP:RS", to which you responded "here are some books that talk about it and meet WP:RS", then it would be No True Scotsman to say "yeah, well, no real books that meet WP:RS talk about it." It's not No True Scotsman if you don't actually have an argument. Then it's just still "No Scotsman". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Someone says something stupid, I merely taunt. The fact of the matter is, just because the term (which is new) hasn't been in publication in hard-print yet (something increasingly rare in today's digital age) doesn't mean it is a term of no currency. Solntsa90 (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Let me rephrase then. "Bear" as a term of gay culture is well attested in academic articles and books and has, over the years, acquired significant meaning in terms of self-identification, for instance. It is proven to be a real, notable term; it is the subject of an edited collection, The Bear Book: Readings in the History and Evolution of a Gay Male Subculture. "Cuckservative", on the other hand, is a recent invention written about on a couple of websites an in a newspaper article or two. So Scottish or not, the comparison is worthless. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep If even mainstream publications like the Washington Post and Breitbart have covered this, it seems that Wikipedia should too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3067:1890:5830:6243:57C9:4C14 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC) — 2602:306:3067:1890:5830:6243:57C9:4C14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • There is no way Breitbart is a "mainstream publication". Whether it's even a "publication" remains to be seen. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This is merely opinion. Breitbart has a paid journalistic staff and a substantial Alexa ranking. It clearly meets a dictionary definition of 'publication' and publishes opinions well within the mainstream as well. Moreover, numerous other media organizations have reported on the term, including New Republic, the Washington Post, the Daily Caller, the Daily Banter, the Cato Institute, Red State, Breitbart, the Daily Beast, Mediate, Salon, Hot Air, and The Week. Denarivs (talk)
• Keep I am personally opposed to it, but if we're going to have articles like mansplaining and manspreading, then we should be consistent and allow this one. I think that instead of having a discussion about the deletion of this single article, we should track down all political neologisms on Wikipedia and decide whether they belong on the website at all. Either we delete them all or we keep them all. No half measure. Akesgeroth (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I could cite OTHERSTUFF. If you really disagree with the term having an article, you should vote deleted. The rest, we'll fix later. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • That's the issue though. This discussion was had for those two other articles and the consensus was "Keep", based on the same reasons given to keep this specific one. We should be aiming for coherence and those two cases set a precedent. If we want to delete this one, then we should first revisit the other two cases and consider deleting them first. Akesgeroth (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Other posters have said all that needs to be said.FauXnetiX (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Some words and memes are harbingers of social strife (e.g., referring to Marie Antoinette as "L'autrichienne" prior to the French Revolution), and "cuckservative" appears to be one of these.Wfgiuliano (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but that one is easily verified by a real source. This one, not so much. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Is the Washington Post a 'fake' or 'unreal' source? Denarivs (talk)
      • One single article in the Washington Post is "not so much", esp. if that article says, in the title, that it's the "conservative insult of the month". Of the month. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I see 380,000 google results for this term. It seems that it will have continuing and increasing cultural influence at least until the next election cycle. Wfgiuliano 2600:100E:B02A:8E4E:848B:967C:CEBC:4248 (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC) — 2600:100E:B02A:8E4E:848B:967C:CEBC:4248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep I rely on Wikipedia to give me first definitions for things never seen, usually inserting "wiki" into my google. Why would you make Wikipedia less useful by deleting this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfredfern (talk • contribs) 08:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC) — Jfredfern (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• delete weak keep !vote changed to delete seems to have enough coverage for a small article, especially the wapo and NR links. however note to closer definite off-wiki canvassing from including reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/new_right/comments/3fmf1t/this_article_is_being_considered_for_deletion_in/ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Liberal friends, we should be supporting this. Civil war on the right is GOOD for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3067:1890:D99E:4F4A:89A1:42D5 (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC) — 2602:306:3067:1890:D99E:4F4A:89A1:42D5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • That's not a valid reason to keep the page. Please see WP:NOT. NotJim99 (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Cloudchased (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Perhaps a year from now this will be a 'thing' but for now it fails WP:NEO. For something like this we should require a lot more sourcing, and what is in the article is just about what there is out there other than blogs and tweets. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete A nonsense word created a week ago by a blogger? Seriously. --Jlambert (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - A breathless spurt of "all things Trump" by the drive-by media does not an article make. The sourcing supports a mention in Trump's campaign article, but not a standalone article for a racist buzzword. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete A few mentions over a few weeks does not a thing make. Per WP:NEO, it's much too early. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Merge / Redirect - to RINO - similar meanings, is newsworthy enough to have its own section. --George100 (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Another political short-lived term. If it survives and is discussed in reliable sources after some time, then it might be notable. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - It's darn hard to know what these references are if they're deleted. I got here from looking it up on google. Clearly, it needed to be defined. I don't care where it is, but it needs to be kept. 99.104.125.199 (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC) — 99.104.125.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Merge / Redirect - to RINO - at the moment it's simply a mainstream neologism, nothing short of slang on internet boards, but it's politically significant enough that it's recognized in media so it shouldn't be ignored entirely. Merging it to RINO - a term that has a more solid foundation and is completely synonymous to the neologism - is both the ultimate compromise and the most effective solution to the debate until the term proves to be more than just a bandwagon phrase. Akkere (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that a majority of the discussion so far was, when I looked at this, discounted as not being grounded in policy and guidelines. Try harder. j⚛e decker^talk 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per BGManofID. We only document terms that have already caught on in secondary sources, not the primary ones like publications from the time period (right now) when this term was created and trying to catch on. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

*Keep It is an indisputable fact that millions of people around the world consider Wikipedia to be their first choice and vanguard of human knowledge as it pertains to being the most reliable resource for learning about new words, and information about people, places, things or other important categorical subjects. The word Cuckservative has caught on fire like no other political term in 2015 and continues burning feverishly bright as a white-hot philippic in the news, political commentary and on TV. Social media is buzzing intensely, especially twitter where more than 10,000 tweets a day are using or discussing the term. Political pundits of the left and Republicans with waffling principles on the right, in open wallace, have announced their scathing hatred of the term because of its capacity to label and brow beat left-regressing republicans. Having looked at the political bias of the people above who say delete the term, you will notice most of them have on the balance left oriented biases in their edits. Every one right of center is talking about this term and it is not the same thing as "RINO", though there is some overlap. If this word is deleted from Wikipedia, it is because the left mobilized themselves and succeeded in overwhelming this discussion with votes for delete. Do the right thing and keep the term, it would be a victory against partisan politics of left-right paradigms. If the term is deleted it is a victory for the left that overwhelmingly dominates Wikipedia. AviBoteach (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — AviBoteach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That is an entirely improper reason to keep or delete an article. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

:::It's obvious the intention to remove the term from wikipedia is grounded in the left's well organized groundswell movement to undermine the pejorative's gravitas at shaming mainstream waffle-Republicans with no principals that are regressing to the left. Case in point from the leftist Cato Institute 'As Racists Return to the Mainstream, Be Sure to Deprive Them of Power', the title says it all and lets the reader know the undercurrent of what the article is really about and defines the opening shots to why we must suppress the portmanteau. And whenever you want to fringe-smear or marginalize someone or something out of the mainstream conversation, connect them with extremism, today's McCarthyism is the shaming word "racism" or any other related fringing pejoratives meant to red-herring uncomfortable topics, like Is “Cuckservative” the New, Hip Racial Slur For White Nationalists?. With the likening to Hitler, anyone who calls out Republicans who betray established party positions of the party's millions of voters and undermine their established constituents are now labelled "White Nationalist" (code word Hitler, code word Neo-Nazi, ut oh, here comes another Holocaust), and so we get a big fat juicy red flagged black Swastika emblazoned with a sexy-pot Aryan dominatrix. Yet only a minuscule number of people using the term Cuckservative are self-described "White Nationalists". We learn from the leftist Salon that Cuckservative is not only a disgusting racist term, but equally disgusting misogynist The GOP crack-up continues: The raging civil war over the disgusting “cuckservative” slur. Since I am prescient, the overwhelmingly left dominated Wikipedia will have its way and the article will be purged down the memory hole, but remember this time and day, I will be vindicated when you see that the word does not go away and becomes a major talking point from now till November 2016 when more than 100 million Americans vote for their next president. AviBoteach (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Indeed, there are piss-poor arguments and SPAs here, but I see multiple reliable sources writing specifically about this term. That's WP:GNG, friends. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

::Could you please provide some reliable sources that are writing specifically about this term? AviBoteach (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The term has been used in articles published by New Republic, the Washington Post, the Daily Caller, the Daily Banter, the Cato Institute, Red State, Breitbart, the Daily Beast, Mediate, Salon, Hot Air, and The Week. Denarivs (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi AviBoteach, I see you're new here. I'm referring to the sources being used as references in the article. Check the bottom of it, or go direct to Cuckservative#References to see the sources. Also, while you're free to question me, of course, I see that we both want this article kept. Unless you misunderstood my position or misstated your own, I'm not sure how fruitful this discussion would be. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Many reliable sources. Very notable.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

::What are some of these many reliable sources, not a rehash of stuff already covered above, but new examples. AviBoteach (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The term has been used in articles published by New Republic, the Washington Post, the Daily Caller, the Daily Banter, the Cato Institute, Red State, Breitbart, the Daily Beast, Mediate, Salon, Hot Air, and The Week. Denarivs (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

::::Can you post titles and links to those articles, so that we have definitive proof of it?AviBoteach (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Its a little early to definitively assess the value of this article, but I think its worth keeping at this time. I suspect this term will go on to play a significant role in 2016 electoral discourse, and already, it is being discussed (and denounced) in notable sources, such as The Washington Post (and several others). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep This is about as important as Binders full of women. Now, I firmly believe that Binders full of women should have been deleted for WP:BELONG and WP:NEO, but it wasn't. And I'd rather see uniformity of logic being applied at this point. I do highly question the use of Breitbart since I'd hardly consider that publication reliable! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete The current article uses clearly biased language I would expect at Metapedia, like "betrayal of the ethnic interests of White European Americans" It also has soapboxing sentences like "The rationales given for these public policy positions, may be dismissed as an attempt to appeal to ethnic minority voters, whilst ignoring their white counterparts, or as a cowardly or otherwise expedient attempt to avoid moral condemnation and slander by leftists." See WP:NPOV. WP:NEO also applies, the term is very new and clearly pushed by biased editors here. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Having language that indicates what the term means to the people who employ it, is not indicative of an ideological bias. Its perfectly valid to note that people referred to as "cuckservatives," are perceived to have engaged in the "betrayal of the ethnic interests of White European Americans," because that it what people who use that term, are on record as saying. That's what the term means to the people who use it. Its not a reflective of a bias, to have articles which represent a perspective that is outside orthodox political discourse. Quite the contrary, in fact. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It should also be noted that most of the sources clearly mocks the term and dismisses it as "the conservative insult of the month". TussilagoFanfara (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

TussilagoFanfara I created the article, but I can't be held responsible for hit-and-run bias editing on it '''tAD''' (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It's notable to some extent, but I think it would fit better as a small section in Republican In Name Only (currently a copy-paste from a old version of the article sits on that page) until it's more established. Again, WP:NEO. Thoughts? (ping The Almightey Drill) TussilagoFanfara (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly a valid suggestion, but this is a rare case when a subject becomes more covered by more facets as time goes on. I'd go for that option of putting it on RINO if there was overwhelming support to delete right now '''tAD''' (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

::::The problem is that cuckservative and RINO are not the same thing, nor subsets of each other. They have completely different definitions, despite the fact there is some overlap. A RINO is basically not a republican at all, but a democrat running under the GOP. A cuckservative is a republican, who runs on party platforms, but is willing to betray his or her constituents on racial grounds. AviBoteach (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• The word is now subject to a report by the SPLC [1] '''tAD''' (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. This source alone is clear evidence of notability. Combined with the other sources already cited in the article, this makes it an easy keep. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Cuckservative is the subject of an article in the United State's newspaper of record, the New York Times: [2]Denarivs (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per BDD plus per the two additional sources above (NYT and SPLC). Cavarrone 17:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Cuckservative is the subject of an article released today in the The Guardian: [3] In addition, the articles in the New York Times and the Week were published in their respective print editions. Denarivs (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - Nearly a 'dozen blue chip' sources, so the article meets all the demands of WP:GNG : significant coverage from reliable and notable independent mainstream secondary sources. I think the page should be kept. Meishern (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2015 (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.