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 speedy close - No new rationale has been given in this proposal since the first three nominations. The proposer should become more familiar with AfD before adding more requests. Fuzheado | Talk 12:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckservative[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This seems to be more of a definition of a slang term than an encyclopedic article. Is this really notable enough to warrant an article? TheDracologist (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to notice how many times this had been nominated before. However, my point still stands. I don't think this is a notable encyclopedic subject. TheDracologist (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would be to merge it into Republican In Name Only. TheDracologist (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm sure this nomination was in good faith, first of all. Since previous no consensus nominations, there has been more reliable sources covering the term. A couple of examples: An IP times article and an opinion in The National Review by Jay Nordlinger. By themselves they might not be much, but combined with all the other sources, notability has been established. I think that in this case the word itself is specifically covered in depth, making it an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia, as discussed in previous AFDs. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in article and discoverable through searches demonstrate the notability of the term. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand the reasons for this article's existence a bit better and while I still think the subject of the article is better suited to a dictionary than an encyclopedia, I can see how one can argue that it has enough coverage to be here. I'm just concerned that this article might be an example of recentism. Perhaps it would be a good idea to merge articles like Cuckservative and Republican In Name Only into an article about pejoratives conservatives use to accuse people of betraying their own party and maybe also create a parallel article for liberal pejoratives of a similar nature. TheDracologist (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The two terms are distinct enough, with one coming much later and with a different context than the other, that I think a merge would either be really muddled (dealing with general discontent with the GOP) or functionally the same as having two articles (but on one page). If there's more examples of these terms, a list could be made, with links to individual articles. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep distinct terms are notable. I believe NOTADICT. was made for special cases like this. Who knows, are slang terms notable or not? Esp. non universal slang. L3X1 (distant write) 21:55, 18 March 2017 (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.