Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East coast liberal

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. Secret ^account 04:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East coast liberal

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

Article is completely unreferenced. Would require sourcing per WP:NEOLOGISM to establish notability. Related to recent deletions of other political pejoratives, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very Serious People (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) for further rationales. Yworo (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a unsourced neologism, and although it may be a phrase that people use, the phrase itself has no notability. Ducknish (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a neologism and an awkward Americanism to boot. In Australia, we have an East Coast too and an East Coast Liberal would be someone very different. It also suggests there should be an equivalent West Coast Conservative or Mid-West Liberal. Obviously not always the case but to justify inclusion we would need a lot more by way of sourcing that has been included or can be found (having done a search). There are a few sources that use the phrase but very few, if any, that properly explain what it means. Stalwart111 01:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & others, as well as WP:NOR & WP:NEO. Unsourced & non-notable.--JayJasper (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize, Merge, & Redirect to Modern Liberalism in the United States; If we look at what searches bring up, one will see that NEO does not apply, the term has been in use since the 1970s (at least 2 examples of usage: 1, 2). So the question remains, is the subject notable? Lets look at what the searches bring up: News, books, and scholar. From What I can tell, the subject is used as an adjective for the past several decades, but the usage has appeared to increase since the turn of the century. It is my opinion that if one were to add up all the content the the subject clearly passes WP:GNG; that being said, if summarized down, worded for neutrality, and cited by the available reliable sources that this can be brought down to two or three well cited paragraphs. This content IMHO belongs in the article Modern Liberalism in the United States, where it can be its own section. If that article meets the size as described by WP:LIMIT, this subject (or another subject) can be spunout.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage does not make something notable. Only coverage as a primary topic in a reliable source makes something notable. Same void argument was made for "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Few editors are likely to fall for such nonsense. Yworo (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is not based on usage, but based on the depth of coverage from the multiple reliable sources that the searches that I linked and provided. As I said, I can see this as a section of an existing article, which I linked in my statement; sure, I can understand the arguments about whether the subject should have a standalone article or not, but that doesn't change my opinion on notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Notability requires coverage as a subject, not some sort of usage threshold. We don't use Google hits to "prove" notability either. You have not directly pointed out any sources of the type needed to establish notability. Maybe there are such sources in your search results, but it's your responsibility to find and present them to support your arguments. Yworo (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Yworo is saying that I am lying in my last statement?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the sources you specifically linked (rather than searches), are in my opinion simply examples of usage. I further have looked at the searches and don't see any sources that obviously overcome my objections, and as I said, think it is your responsibility to point out directly any sources that you think do rather then assuming other editors should have to dig through the search results and find them. Take that as you will. Yworo (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples: Building Prosperity: Why Ronald Reagan And the Founding Fathers Were Right, p. 12, America Right Or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism, p. 109, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy: A Righteous Gentile Vs. The Third Reich, p. 329

Either way, if you add up all the descriptions of the subject of this article, one would add up to at least one or two in-depth coverage of the subject, sufficient to meet WP:GNG. As I said, I think a brief paragraph or two in the article Modern liberalism in the United States would be sufficient, although I think the subject is notable enough on its own. The subject, whose title name has been in regular use since at least the 1970s, would fall under the subject of the article Modern liberalism in the United States, and thus why it is best as a neutrally worded, and well cited, section in that article. That being said, as the term has been applied to both members of the GOP and the Democrat Party in the United States, such as it being used as an adjective for George Herbert Walker Bush in this book, and outside politics when describing an academic in this book.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protip: Don't say Democrat Party if you want to sound neutral. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - every political insult cannot be notable.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A policy based reason for deletion is required, not just WP:OR or personal opinion. I have shown how WP:NEO does not apply due to the length of time which the subject has received mentions and significant coverage in reliable sources. I have shown how the multiple mentions available, can add up to one or two significant coverage sources, and how it is my opinion that some of the source do provide more than just passing mention of the subject. So what is the reason for deletion? I don't like it isn't a valid reason. Furthermore, I have shown how the subject falls within the scope of Modern liberalism in the United States, therefore, a redirect and neutrally worded, well cited, content belongs in that article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please point at the specific WP:ATA line you think this falls under or consider striking your long winded and apparently pointless refutation. The argument was that the phrase was not notable, not that it's a "new and novel useage of the phrase". Hasteur (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Even if it is a cliche, that would not make it Notable. Merely dull. I wasn't expressing a personal view (that would be indifference) but a concern that the idea of Notability could be undermined by a flood of fashionable catchphrases from narrow interest groups. If every time a speech writer plagiarised a similar argument that became Notable, then what would be the point? I say again, Delete--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sourcing is the significant argument for deletion here. I understand that "AFD isn't cleanup" but if involved editors cannot be bothered to make improvements to the article itself when problems are pointed out and when the article is deleted, perhaps we are not the right location for defining this. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no question the phrase is used, but there's no indication of a concrete definition in WP:RS that we could build an article from. Nor is merging a good option. Merge what? The entire article is unsourced WP:OR. If you really want to see this idea expressed, add a sentence to Modern liberalism in the United States saying that people in coastal states are more likely to vote for liberal candidates than their Midwestern counterparts or whatever. Just attach a good reference to it. No one wants to see Wikipedia turned into Urban Dictionary for politics. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is arguably a case where this neologism is overly general that it contains an adjective and subject together which would be naturally found together, and it inside itself would not be a term all together. The lack of sources or recognition as a whole term is very minimal. Mkdw ^talk 01:12, 8 April 2013 (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.