Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nixonian

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 redirect to Richard Nixon. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 21:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nixonian

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

"Nixonian" is not supported by any sources other than examples. If anything, it is a dictionary definition, not encyclopaedic. Pol098 (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note - relisting malformed, but, IMO, worthwhile nomination --B (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - on a quick search, I can't find anyone actually defining the term as opposed to merely using it. "Reaganite" (the comparable term for Reagan) just redirects to Reagan himself. --B (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Rockefeller Republican, with which it strongly overlaps. I see that Nixon has been called a Rockefeller Republican, and so a Nixonian would be a flavor of a Rockefeller Republican. Seriously, these are loose, qualitative, generalizing characterizations that should be treated collectively, not in splinters. As it is verifiable, it should not be deleted, but does not warrant a standalone page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be totally incorrect. Calling someone "Nixonian" and calling someone a "Rockefeller Republican" are completely different things. See here. Neutrality^talk 11:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rockefeller Republicans" were a concrete group of people in a specific time and place. This would be analogous to a page called Rockefellerian — which would also be unencyclopedic. If there is any redirect to be left here, it should be to Richard Nixon. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Nixon, or transfer to Wiktionary; here and here are good references. Neutrality^talk 11:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard Nixon. It doesn't provide sufficient sources to prove that Nixonian refers to a distinct policy position: particularly in the article lead, the word seems to refer to almost any attribute of Nixon. A lot of the article seems a bit POV-ish attempting to construct a view of Nixon that isn't mainstream or conventional. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Encyclopedias are filled with nouns: people, places, and things. This is an adjective, as well as being a neologism, and thus what we have here is a dictionary definition. Etymology can be fun, but this is not Wiktionary, eh? Carrite (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Colapeninsula, where some sourced discussion of the term might ultimately be included in the "Legacy" or " Personality and public image" sections. "Nixonian" is a well-used term but it means different things to different people--not surprising given Nixon's extremely complex personality and record--and ultimately its only clear meaning is "similar to Nixon" (in the opinion of the user). So any encyclopedic discussion of what it means just ends up being a discussion of Nixon and his perceived qualities and legacy, and that belongs in the article about him.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; found multiple usages of the word, but none that give significant coverage to the subject in reliable sources where the subject (the adjective) is the primary subject of the source. Therefore, failing WP:GNG, deletion appears to be in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard Nixon. I agree almost completely with RightCowLeftCoast; there is not significant coverage of the term itself, and so it should likely be deleted. But, that said, it is a term and people do use it and I expect some will search for it, so redirecting to Nixon seems reasonable as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:48, 5 March 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.