Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican In Name Only
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. IceKarmaॐ 04:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Republican In Name Only
Inherently POV:ed article title that exsists merely to explain that all Republican don't actually live up to the Republican-stereotype. XXX in name only is in no way unique to either the US or US party politics and can be applied to literally any party affiliation, ideology, religious belief or general opinion and would be filled to the brim with POV garbage pretending to be "encyclopedic information" in notime. Naturally, it's also a verifiability nightmare and a breeding ground for political trolls. The Democratic equivalent has been nominated below. Delete per Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. Peter Isotalo 17:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It looks to me like the main purpose of this article is to maintain a "list of enemies." Not very encyclopedic. Also, as long as we're ticking off problems, this is a complete neologism; the term is not, to the best of my knowledge, a term in wide use. Nandesuka 17:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: It's in fairly wide use among the politicos in the US. It's new-ish, but I think it has probably survived long enough to be a thing referred to by others (i.e. my rule for "appearing in multiple contexts" and not poli-cruft). It's Yet Another Political Acronym, and it's one of those monstrously stupid "meme"s, but it has gotten traction. Geogre 02:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, sigh. This is an extremely current term in the blogosphere and has been around for a long time, at least since 2000. Note that the article is not "Wikipedia's list of Republicans who are not true Republicans". RINO (and DINO) are common terms on the respective blogs like Redstate and the Dailykos -- not to mention the various TV shows and action groups that have also used these exact phrases and are listed in the article. A glance at the articles in question shows that they are well researched, well written, and extensively sourced. Before declaring something "garbage" please consider reading it first. Sdedeo 19:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete although I like the sound of Dinos and Rhinos. Dlyons493 19:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. I've seen this term in use in the partisan press, Human Events for instance. It's not a neologism, and it is a term in very wide use. Simply because Wikipedia isn't a propaganda machine doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on notable propaganda terms that have been used in the real as well as virtual press. — Phil Welch 19:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- But it's just a standard phrase applied to the two major political parties. I don't even see it a set term, let alone as an article. Just look at these googlings for communist Christian or even man. Should we expect more of these articles, or are the two biggest US political parties the only exceptions? / Peter Isotalo 21:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- IMO, one reasonable test that both these articles pass is that they would be recognized as acronyms: "RINO"/"DINO". There are lots of articles that could be termed "standard phrases" used for POV ends -- e.g., Strategic lawsuit against public participation. Nobody would use "CINO" and expect to be understood. Again, please look at the article, and the references linked. [1], e.g., or [2]. Sdedeo 22:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you search Google, you'll find a few instances of "LINO"; "labor in name only", so I don't buy that argument. An acronym does not make it unique. I can't comment on the legal article, since I don't know how common the term actually it is. But both the phrase and the entire concept is too common to deserve its own article. This just smacks of US-centrism to me. The goal of the article is also very diffuse and inherently problematic; what defines a Republican in the first place? Is it the party program? The stereotype? Their actions vs. their opinions? This is too slippery an issue for an encyclopedia to be dealing with. If you keep it, people will just keep adding "putative" persons to the list. It wouldn't surprise me if most of Congress winds up there sooner or later. / Peter Isotalo 09:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, again, wikipedia is not deciding who is or is not a "RINO"; it is reporting on who has been specifically called that by various pressure groups or partisan journalists. "LINO" may or may not be current (I doubt it) but if LINO starts showing up in press releases from left-wing British pressure groups and in columns by political figures, then by all means we should include it. It doesn't matter if all of Congress eventually gets included -- that would be a fantastically useful list, since the entries would be accompanied by links to the press coverage in question. There are plenty of articles that are prone to people adding "putative" members, but we have ways to deal with vandalism and content disputes. Sdedeo 18:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- But that's sooo useless. What's the point of having an article on a term if it turns out to be more or less all-encompassing? That means that Wikipedia "decides" that no Republican is a "real Republican", which is utterly useless to any reader. The article is not going to be taken seriously here. It's going to be a battleground for US party political nonsense. / Peter Isotalo 06:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, again, wikipedia is not deciding who is or is not a "RINO"; it is reporting on who has been specifically called that by various pressure groups or partisan journalists. "LINO" may or may not be current (I doubt it) but if LINO starts showing up in press releases from left-wing British pressure groups and in columns by political figures, then by all means we should include it. It doesn't matter if all of Congress eventually gets included -- that would be a fantastically useful list, since the entries would be accompanied by links to the press coverage in question. There are plenty of articles that are prone to people adding "putative" members, but we have ways to deal with vandalism and content disputes. Sdedeo 18:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you search Google, you'll find a few instances of "LINO"; "labor in name only", so I don't buy that argument. An acronym does not make it unique. I can't comment on the legal article, since I don't know how common the term actually it is. But both the phrase and the entire concept is too common to deserve its own article. This just smacks of US-centrism to me. The goal of the article is also very diffuse and inherently problematic; what defines a Republican in the first place? Is it the party program? The stereotype? Their actions vs. their opinions? This is too slippery an issue for an encyclopedia to be dealing with. If you keep it, people will just keep adding "putative" persons to the list. It wouldn't surprise me if most of Congress winds up there sooner or later. / Peter Isotalo 09:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- IMO, one reasonable test that both these articles pass is that they would be recognized as acronyms: "RINO"/"DINO". There are lots of articles that could be termed "standard phrases" used for POV ends -- e.g., Strategic lawsuit against public participation. Nobody would use "CINO" and expect to be understood. Again, please look at the article, and the references linked. [1], e.g., or [2]. Sdedeo 22:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- But it's just a standard phrase applied to the two major political parties. I don't even see it a set term, let alone as an article. Just look at these googlings for communist Christian or even man. Should we expect more of these articles, or are the two biggest US political parties the only exceptions? / Peter Isotalo 21:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. That the term may have several potential meanings does not mean we can't have an article about the ones that are known to exist in common use. That, after all, is what disambiguation pages are for. NatusRoma 20:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, valid political term. I saw Arnold Schwartzeneggar (I can never spell that without looking it up) referred to as a RINO just today. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Phrase in common usage in discussion of US public events. Capitalistroadster 23:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - real term, widely used. Why not? Guettarda 00:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep, common usage in U.S. politics. On the other hand, this article has deteriorated. We need to get back to having an agreed set of criteria for what is citable (just being named in some non-notable blog should not be), and what can't be cited should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: Distastefully ephemeral, but, yes, it is in wide use (much more wide use than DINO). On the other hand, as with DINO, all this "examples of" wiki-itis has got to go. My vote to keep is not in any sense an endorsement of the POV ridiculousness that pollutes articles like this. The article is itself not inherently POV, but some folks need to take the scissors to it or start citing every single usage. Geogre 02:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Do you really think people will stop adding crap? Do you think it's worth keeping the article just to fight all those bloggers out there who want to add their favorite political pachyderm? In the "blogosphere", I suspsect there's always some published political kook to quote. / Peter Isotalo 09:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This has been discussed before and gave overwhelming keep consensus, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Republican/Democrat In Name Only. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I don't have a problem with this article. Alf melmac 12:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep This is a term that is in general use, and what is the point of Wikipedia if it can't be used to find out what a term like this means? I came across this article looking for an easy reference to point someone to in a comment on my own blog as an explanation for the term RINO. This isn't just a blogosphere coinage - the citations at the end of the entry show that the term has wider currency in the mainstream media.
That said, the article badly needs editing: it only needs a short summary of what the term means, citations showing its use over the years, etc. I don't see how a long list of "examples of" helps anybody, and the caption to the Giuliani/Powell photograph ("Rudy Giuliani and Colin Powell are widely popular with the American people...") doesn't seem very encyclopedia-ish. --John H 13:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC) - Keep this and Democrat In Name Only. -- BD2412 talk 17:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep with modifications. The list is thoroughly un-encyclopaedic; the definition and etymology, however, are extremely useful. Particularly for international readers who might not know what the term means, like me. Wooster 18:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Common phrase among political blogs. --Calton | Talk 21:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, someone really needs to read up on modern political terms, not even worth explaining. Piecraft 14:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep ··gracefool |☺ 17:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
