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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpublican[edit]

Trumpublican (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)

This is a poorly written article with unverified POV claims whose subject is a non-notable neologism which has hardly ever been used. It might meet criteria for more speedy or uncontroversial deletion given all these problems but I am not sure. So just in case any fellow editors want to keep this article instead of deleting it, I decided to do the AfD process so that the English Wikipedia community could decide whether to delete it, keep it, merge it, redirect it, or something else.

Personally I, the one nominating it, want it deleted for all the reasons given in the first sentence. I do not feel that improving the article would be worth it, since even if it is made NPOV and all unverified claims are removed and it is better written, it will still be an article about a non-notable neologism which has hardly ever been used, so fixing the article would be a waste of time in my opinion as even if it is fixed it is still about a non-notable neologism. "Trumpocrat" was also copyrighted by Donald Trump at the same time as "Trumpublican" and has far more hits in search engines than "Trumpublican", but there is no "Trumpocrat" article, nor should there be, and "Trumpublican" is even less notable than "Trumpocrat". Hardly anyone uses either of those neologisms and if we had a Wikipedia article for every neologism that a notable person in politics copyrighted it would be a very long list of very short articles that would have to be created. Other people please feel free to state what you want done with this article (keep, delete, redirect, merge, etc.) below and give reasons why. But as far as this particular neologism goes, being copyrighted, then mentioned once on an obscure blog and then once by a columnist at a single newspaper does not make something particularly notable, especially not if it is a neologism.

Anyway personally along with being fine with a delete, I would also be fine with having this be a redirect to some portion of the Donald Trump article about his supporters or some other article about Donald Trump supporters if anyone can come up with something for this to redirect to. I would not want to merge this with any other article, because there is not any quality content in this article worth putting into any other article. Yetisyny (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM or WP:WORDISSUBJECT. All that can be inferred from the sources in the article is that the term is an abandoned trademark by Donald Trump. No evidence is presented in the article to confirm that "a member of the Republican Party who advocates for a small, fiscally conservative, republican government" is indeed most often termed a Trumpublican. I find that quite unlikely given that dozens of millions of people voted for Trump, yet the term gets only 8,660 Google hits, so I'd call this a neologism that hasn't taken off yet. If we instead treat the term itself as the subject of the article, it again fails per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, as it has little possibility to grow far beyond the one sentence in the article that concerns the word itself. Daß Wölf 02:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wölf, as it lacks any significance like Reagan Democrat. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus for deletion? I originally put this article into the AfD (articles for deletion) process and my comment is the one at the top recommending deletion. The 2 comments since then by Daß Wölf and Yoshiman6464 both are ones I entirely agree with which also call for deletion for very similar reasons. Nobody has argued for keeping this article or cited any Wikipedia policies that would justify keeping it, so it seems there is probably a consensus among editors to delete this article.
  
  And as defined in the article, the article lists a number of policy views "Trumpublicans" allegedly have, which are the exact same policy views the majority of mainstream Republicans would probably agree with both now and for the last few decades, and arguably the article is just about Republicans in general and not supporters of Donald Trump. It links to the "issues" page of Donald Trump's campaign website which only has 2 issues on it, immigration and ending ObamaCare, neither of which is among the issues listed in this article as one "Trumpublicans" care about. Basically none of the citations in the article are done accurately, to have the article reflect the contents of the sources that are being cited.
  
  This neologism is largely unused (unlike, say, "post-truth" or "alt-right" which are indeed notable political terms that gained widespread usage in 2016) and does not seem to meet the guidelines for general notability on Wikipedia, which specifically have as grounds for exclusion neologisms that are not in widespread usage. Also the small number of comments reflects a lack of interest in this article because it is such a little-used neologism and article almost nobody looks at, thus underscoring its lack of general notability. --Yetisyny (talk) 15:29, 2 January 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.