Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican Revolution of 2016

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 as a neologism, and under the arguments of WP:TOOSOON.. Joyous! | Talk 01:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Revolution of 2016

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

A PROD tag was removed by the article's creator. I stand by my original rationale for the PROD:

Neologism. The article brings nothing that isn't already covered in articles about the US 2016 election cycle.

I guess I could also point to our policy on original research. Pichpich (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not that it's implausible that we will come over time to refer to this election by this neologism; we may. However, I searched, and very few sources call it that as yet. At best, this is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Triumphalism aside, a Gnews search for this exact term yields absolutely nothing. A Gnews search for the term without "of 2016" does yield some passing mentions as a metaphor, but no more so than any article on "[name of politician/party] landslide" merits an article on such a landslide as a real thing, in addition to the election or politician in question. The Trump/GOP successes are well documented in the appropriate articles. Even Reagan revolution is a redirect. If someone wants to repurpose as a redirect, I've no objection. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: Did you mean, "Trumphalism?" GAB^gab 01:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NEO and really WP:MADEUP. I don't think it's a plausible redirect. ansh 666 19:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete until sources actually refer to it as such, like the 94 Republican Revolution. ValarianB (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above arguments re WP:NEO. This is not notable enough to warrant its own stand-alone article. The article basically summarizes the results of the election, which are already adequately covered in the main article. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not even a neologism - that would imply that someone has used it! It's the author's own WP:MADEUP term. Apparently, they were just itching to create an article. Jergling (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far too soon. A more plausible redirect might be Whig Party (United States), Revolution of 1848. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability, with no media coverage using the term. WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO apply here AusLondonder (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2016 (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.