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. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rapepublican[edit]

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

neologism and attack term, not supported by any of the cited sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the 115 unique web sources from Google, I'm hard-pressed to find any that use the term in a manner that is meaningful & appropriate for an encyclopedia. Given that the term is at least suggestively libelous and there appears to lack quality sources, delete this and User:Hervécortez/Rapepublican. — Scientizzle 17:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the legislation is notable, write an article about the legslitaion, not the made up insult name.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Franken amendment or Amendment SA 2588 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I don't support keeping and moving is the only content that looks npov is the list of nay voters, which isn't even really content. If there were more salvagable I'd agree, but I think we're better starting from scratch. If someone wants to work on it I could see userfying, but it's not just a "not good" article. It's a "bad" article. If you know what i'm saying.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the day comes that someone wants to write an encyclopedic article about the proposed legislation, I'll look forward to seeing it. Whether the intent is to make supporters of the bill look like idiots, or to make opponents of the bill look like rapists, we're not here to advance anybody's political agenda. Mandsford (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per discussion above. The article almost hedges on an attack article. Almost. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this would be a non-notable attack term. RFerreira (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That it's an attack term used by the left is no reason to delete the article. Moonbat, an attack term used by the right, has survived three AfD attempts. The difference is that the term "moonbat" is common enough to be notable but the term "Rapepublican" isn't. Reinstate the article in the unlikely event that the term achieves currency. JamesMLane t c 01:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism, with little notability. Slightly POV, maybe a bit pointy, though I wouldn't quite call it an attack page, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list of votes is a matter of public record, so it's not an attack per se, but the term fails NPOV. If the term has achieved notability, a mention in the Franken Amendment article would be worthwhile, if it could be done neutrally - but that seems unlikely. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry guys, the neologism argument simply isn't going to work, when Wikipedia allows such articles as Dirty Sanchez and Santorum. It's no more an 'attack term' than RINO. Let's be fair and honest. Hervécortez (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "neologism argument" is perfectly relevant. From WP:NEO:
  Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term.
  Without the presentation of reliable sources that use and define the term sufficiently for an encyclopedia article, it doesn't belong. — Scientizzle 16:07, 1 March 2010 (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.