Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuckservative (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 no consensus. Bordering on keep, but a few "keep" opinions appear dubious in terms of sockiness. Anyway, the majority thinks that this is a silly but notable term, but that the "list of people accused ..." should be removed as a BLP problem. Sandstein 20:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckservative

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

Last AfD did not gain consensus. Subject is just another Neologism which shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Article has not improved since the previous AfD, where Drmies stated "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" samtar ^(msg) 17:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. samtar ^(msg) 18:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still. Let's not say, please, that being mentioned or even discussed in a couple of newspaper articles means that a neologism from the political cycle gains encyclopedic relevance. NOTNEWS etc. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been more than two months since the terms peak usage in late July/early August, and the subject is still receiving media coverage, such as recent articles in National Review and The Washington Post. That clearly establishes the term's longevity and independence from news cycles. Denarivs (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New as the term is, it seems to have established political importance (Washington Post, Slate, NY Times, The Guardian, Daily Beast , New Republic, Breitbart article advocating the term's use, Red State writer against its use). Even if the term falls out of fashion quickly, the level of discussion makes it notable at least as a 2015 historical interest.

However, the article has WP:ATTACK problems. I suggest removing the Notable people accused of being cuckservatives section for a start. If this accusation becomes significant in any political figure's career or campaign, it might well be included as a narrative, but the Wikipedia bullet list (however well-sourced, and I haven't checked) serves only as force-multiplier for smear campaigns. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to strongly disagree, silly political neologisms are not encyclopedic. They are, however, okay over at Wiktionary. I think Wikipedia is not a dictionary sums it up. samtar ^(msg) 18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Recent consensus on Wikipedia has been fairly liberal with neologisms when they have been demonstrated as notable in independent secondary sources. I'm not personably enthusiastic about this development. Forgive the WP:OTHERCRAP, but the DINO article, which I nominated for its 5th deletion discussion, has serious WP:NEO problems, and it appears to be here to stay. RINO, which had similar problems in its early years, is now a decent (if minor) article. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, undue weight given to a minor and current neologism. Also, this article seems fundamentally unbalanced: it has a lot of detail about the right-wing originator's rationale for the term and little about its general impact. Mainstream new sources have reported its existence and usage among a distinct group, but this doesn't give it mainstream significance.Cyrej (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless intractable, article quality issues do not necessarily favor deletion since articles can always be improved. Also, the article is clearly more notable than other very comparable articles that have survived deletion (like the DINO article mentioned above), with more than sixty sources to establish notability. Denarivs (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and Weak Delete) - redirect to Republican In Name Only#Cuckservative. I !voted delete at the previous AfD. There was a flurry of coverage about the word (indeed not just using the word). The list leading up to the 8/14 AfD close included, among others, Slate, Buzzfeed, The Guardian, Salon, Salon twice, Breitbart, Daily Kos, Daily Beast, Washington Post, SPLC, and The New York Times, but no indication of lasting significance. That argument could still be made, but when I search for sources with the start date set to 8/14 (end of the last AfD), I see the coverage continued, although it has tapered significantly. Hence the downgrade from delete to weak delete. There are the high-profile conservative and far-right sources, yes (for example, [http://www.amren.com/news/2015/09/david-french-a-cuck-begs-for-mercy/ American Renaissance] and National Review -- which also made it to the The Washington Post opinion page), but there's also Bustle, National Post, Columbia Journalism Review, Telegraph, Radix Journal, NPR (WNPR), and NewsR. So this is a notable neologism, yes. But being notable does not mean it merits a stand-alone article (see WP:N). RINO is still the better known term, so it makes more sense for that to exist than this one, but maybe the best approach would be to fold them into something like "Criticism between conservatives/Republicans" (which I didn't bother to wikilink because my wording is abysmal). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a nice notable contribution from The Almightey Drill. Also strongly agree with comments by Edgarde re notability, and recommendations by same user as to how to improve the article quality. Significant secondary source coverage among multiple sources -- even if we limit research to those references to only those sources cited that use the term in the title headline of the article, itself. — Cirt (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also agree with Keep rationale comments from the last AFD, by admin BDD. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, this seems like a clear GNG pass to me. It is a very similar concept to RINO, though, so a merge to Republican In Name Only#Cuckservative might not be so bad either. And it would deserve a merge rather than just redirecting—and I don't suggest that lightly. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This probably isn't going to reach consensus, as it's a politically-charged issue, but I don't think an encyclopedia filled with American political epithets is something anyone wants. While the top-tier media coverage might suggest some sort of notability, we must take the long view that notability guidelines suggest and not mistake media infotainment (which isn't the best article to link to here) for genuine coverage. This is an entry for Urban Dictionary.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject has received coverage outside of America and indeed outside of the Anglosphere, with articles in the Spanish language "Gaceta" source and the Hebrew "Haaretz" newspaper. In addition, the term's serious writeups in papers like the New York Times and The Washington Post were not entertaining or low quality. Denarivs (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Silly and deeply offensive as it is, keep per Edgarde and Cirt. For those who suggest we are sullying ourselves a la Urban Dictionary, have you ever read WP:ODD? No, really, take a look at some of the really freaky political stuff we have already. In this case, it's well-sourced, although I'd take out the WP:BLP disasters in the "persons accused" section. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the "persons accused" section. If the term were being used primarily to describe one or two people, that could be appropriate to mention in prose, but this term seems to be used pretty indiscriminately. We don't have a similar section at the more stable Republican In Name Only. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 'Cuckservative' survived the previous articles for deletion nomination, and this second renomination within the course of two months seems pointless and political. In contrast to several predictions made in the previous discussion, dozens of new articles have been published in reliable independent sources on the subject. The most significant new mentions include articles published in the Washington Post, The Atlantic, and National Review Online. I'm not the best at formatting, so this list will be a bit messy, but here are the mind-boggling 68 reliable independent sources on 'cuckservative':

List of sources

Anti-Defamation League

Columbia Journalism Review

The Libertarian Republic

Mediaite

Mediate

MSNBC

National Review Online

The Southern Poverty Law Center

How anyone could possibly claim that this subject fails notability guidelines is beyond me. Denarivs (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Denarivs: You appear to have two bold text !votes above. This is likely due to my collapsing the list, which separated two lines of text. Could you remove/strike one of them? Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out and for collapsing the list. I've removed one of them. Denarivs (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)1[reply]

Strong Keep This is self-evidently notable (the list of sources above, helps to illustrate that fact). It really does seem like the intensity of the opposition to this article, stems in part, from some people's personal discomfort with it, based on their own socio-political perspectives, and obviously, such personal considerations should play no role in these matters. Does anyone really believe that there would have already been multiple nominations for deletion of this article, if everything else about it were to remain the same, but with the sole difference that it was instead a slur used against White nationalists and their sympathizers, rather than one used by them? I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but that doesn't require me to get a lobotomy. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As stated by others, this term has been discussed by countless mainstream publications. Don't see how it isn't notable Rossbawse (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Myriad of sources to support its notability, relevant to current political climate of American conservatism. BigGoyForYou (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC) — BigGoyForYou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Closing admin, please take into account the likelihood of socking taking place on this AfD again. samtar ^(msg) 20:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm convinced by the sources provided that this term is notable enough to merit an article. However, I would say the 'list of politicians accused of being cuckservatives' should be removed, as it doesn't add much to the article, and is basically a BLP disaster. Robofish (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2015 (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.