Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuckservative (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. As previously, opinions remain split about whether this flower of the English language is a notable enough neologism to warrant article-level coverage.  Sandstein  17:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckservative[edit]

AfDs for this article:
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)

Term that only has been used for a short period of time by a some conservatives and White supremacists. Can be covered under Republican In Name Only. Laber□T 06:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, let alone Urban Dictionary. This is an extremely new neologism (hasn't even been a year that it's been around, right?) and it really makes no sense to include it in an encyclopedia unless there are at least some academic sources dissecting and analyzing this thing. I honestly don't see the point in rushing to include every new neologism that pops up in the media or so-called "blogosphere" -- what are we all here for? We're here to build an encyclopedia, or rather most of us are here for this purpose. This is not an encyclopedic article. Laval (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the word has, if anything, become more widely known since the previous nomination. Its notability has nothing to do with whether we like the people who use it. – Smyth\talk 07:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I wanted to point out is its limited use making it, in my opinion, not notable enough, not that it is used by groups that are unlikeable. --Laber□T
  • Keep The in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources is more than sufficient to satisfy GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article does not satisfy most of the criteria for notability. That said, I quote from WP:GNG, "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." This sentence more than applies to the subject being discussed here. It is not notable enough for its own article, but may warrant mention within another article. Ultimately, we're talking about a bunch of blog posts and a few news articles that hardly constitute encyclopedic knowledge, and if we limit ourselves to only reliable sources, of which there are extremely few (unless we want to get into tabloid and pundit material), altogether there is barely enough for an entire article. This neologism thing on Wikipedia has started to get out of hand, and I'm not hearing any arguments at all as to why this term deserves its own article at this point in time beyond claims that enough reliable sources exist, and this in spite of the fact that most of the sources are blog and tabloid fodder. Are we to allow Wikipedia to become The National Enquirer? Laval (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:GNG... "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Even the most casual perusal of the cited sources clearly demonstrates the topic of this article has been the subject of extensive coverage in multiple RS sources. A quick Google showed an almost endless number of hits. I'm sorry but this is not a close call. It clearly passes GNG. The argument for deletion appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For the record, I find the term extremely distasteful. But taste is not in the guidelines. And the Washington Post, Salon and the Southern Poverty Law Center (to name just a few of the sources) are not the National Enquirer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply because WP:NOTDICT, especially not one for recent neologisms and slang within niche groups. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The word is not some new term in street slang. It is one that is being used by certain political constituencies and which has gained widespread coverage in the mainstream press and media. As such NOTDICTIONARY clearly does not apply. See When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself says that it gained popular use last year. That's pretty new. I still agree with the previous contention that it is a neologism synonymous with RINO, and the fact that it traces it's origins to the use of the term cuckold on 4chan as an insult only further limits it's use to communities and sources where referencing a type of fetish so casually like that is acceptable. The page you referenced mentions notability of the word, which I don't believe this has, especially compared to RINO itself. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it would be limited to some conservatives and white supremacists in certain online communities, which would make the group of (potential) users even smaller. --Laber□T 09:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of which is relevant. The article subject has received very extensive coverage in mainsteam RS sources. It clearly satisfies GNG. Again we seem to be back to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator is obviously an expert on terminology and Urban Dictionary. Ahem, or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why none of the sources come from said unverifiable source. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whatever minor infamy it had previously as a term seems to have disappeared- don't think there's been any coverage from reliable sources except for the initial reaction. Certainly hasn't become a notable pejorative in its own right. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has received extensive coverage in multiple RS sources and notability is not temporary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notability should, however, be WP:SUSTAINED. clpo13(talk) 16:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source coverage in the article runs from roughly July of 2015 through February of this year. A Google News search yielded further RS coverage as recently as this month. SUSTAINED is not an issue here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki: Not encyclpedic in here, it should been transwikied into wikictionary. KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 02:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Used for a small time only" - Notability is not temporary. "by a [[sic] some conservatives and White supremacists" - And? Do we not have articles for every racial epithet?". This doesn't belong in wiktionary because it's not a real word and there is no set definition for it. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This concept is not entirely the same as RINO. As this article [1] states, this term also has significant race and pornography undertones, so it is not the exact same concept. I would support linking this article in the "see also" of RINO and RINO in the "see also" of this article.Ingebot (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC) — Ingebot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to alt-right (first choice) or Redirect to Republican In Name Only#Cuckservative. More or less per what I said at the last at both of the last AfDs. Noticed that it seems practically inseparable from the "alt-right" concept, which, even with SPA !votes set aside, does not look to be heading towards deletion (i.e. it'll exist as a merge target). Obviously, my second choice becomes the only choice if alt-right is deleted. Also see my comments at that ongoing AfD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to [[Republican In Name Only#Cuckservative], where a short section already exists. This is a failed neologism. Here is my hews google search, and it's paltry [1], binging the search up by most recent makes it clear that this neologism did not take [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Republican in Name Only#Cuckservative. Jarble (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable because of the racially, sexually charged nature of the term. Notability is clear, partly because of the number of the articles specifically on the term. I'm not sure merging into alt-right or RINO is either of them a fair redirect. Blythwood (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is distinct from RINO, and if you follow the internet discussions on the 2016 election, you're bound to see it sooner or later. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per past AfDs and Blythwood in this AfD. It's a horrid epithet that is not going away anytime soon. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 19 May 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.
  1. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/13/cuckservative-republicans-conservatives-jeb-bush
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cuckservative_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1070969927"