Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Republican

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 merge to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012. Spartaz Humbug! 05:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Republican

edit
Blue Republican (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Contested proposed deletion.  Chzz  ►  22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the term was just coined in the blogosphere in the last month. While it may, at some point in the future, gain mainstream acceptance, it has not done so yet. (Note: when looking for sources, don't be confused by "True Blue Republican", which occurs quite a bit - that's just using the adjective true blue to describe somebody's Republicanism - it's unrelated to the idea of a "Blue Republican", which is the concept of a Democrat voting for Ron Paul to object to statist policies of Obama.) --B (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "While it may, at some point in the future, gain mainstream acceptance, it has not done so yet." Lots of ideas that are on wikipedia have not gained mainstream acceptance. And since when is the truth or importance of a matter determined by "the mainstream" -- ie the public, the majority, the blithering commoner? If we accepted the mob's definition of importance to settle the issue of worth, we'd have thrown out every great piece of art, literature, and culture in the Western Canon, and be left with nothing but the whinings of Miley Cyrus and Toni Morrison.
    And so how do you propose we determine the importance of a term? My small town of 5000 people has a wikipedia page! Do you think anyone outside of my county gives a damn about it? This, on the other hand, is a very significant political movement that is affecting the current history of the United States -- and the people should be able to learn about it if they wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixAquarius (talk • contribs) 02:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Municipalities are inherently notable. Words made up last week are not. --B (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    B, I think I see why we disagree. It is nothing more than a miscommunication, probably my fault. This article isn't meant to be about the definition of a new word; it is mean to explain a new political movement. How can someone argue that a municipality of 5000 people is more important than a political movement that already has 3000 members on facebook alone, and which has been featured on news stations on TV and in numerous online publications? -- PhoenixAquarius (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG--JayJasper (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting concept, but it doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is exactly the kind of information for which Wikipedia is arguably the best provider. Traditional paper encyclopedias of course cannot respond as quickly as we can. The point is the term exists, it is being used, and it has a meaning. Thus, readers are likely to google it, and even come specifically to Wikipedia to look it up. Isn't it better to reliably document what little source-able usage of it that there is, rather than not document it at all? What better place to have a neutral and informative definition of such topics than Wikipedia? And what is the harm in having it? It's not like we're tight on disk space. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information that people don't know, not regurgitate stuff that everybody already knows verbatim without question. When people hear a term they don't understand they look it up in a search engine or Wikipedia to find out about it. Wikipedia would be useless indeed if it deleted every article that the masses didn't already know everything about. Additionally, the above objection about the "mainstream-ness" of a term may be politically motivated -- an attempt to block information and to prevent a political idea from spreading. This sort of political censorship should be firmly resisted by Wikipedia. -- User:carolm62 10:27 18 July, 2011 (UTC)— carolm62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Merge and Redirect to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012. Changing from my previous position in favor of "delete". While it does not appear to have enough coverage presently to warrant a stand-alone article, it has relevance to the Paul campaign and has at least enough coverage to justify a mention in the campaign article. Can always reinstated as an article should a higher volume of significant coverage ensue.--JayJasper (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like a good compromise, though it should be noted that the term is not specific to Ron Paul. It could be used to refer to Gary Johnson supporters who temporarily register Republican to vote for him as well. Perhaps for now the redirect should be to a subsection on the article about the Republican primaries, Republican Party (United_States) presidential primaries, 2012? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could refer to Johnson based on what? The guy who invented the term defined it as Ron Paul. Does anyone use this term to describe voting for Gary Johnson? --B (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree with B. Ron Paul is the primary and original focus of this movement, so it should redirect to his 2012 campaign article. If sources show the term has expanded to include Gary Johnson, it can mentioned on his '12 campaign article as well, while acknowledging that Paul was the original object of the movement.--JayJasper (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a clarification of my earlier delete !vote, I have no problem with the title being merged/redirected somewhere - but there should not be an article at this name when it's clearly not notable. --B (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012. Not enough information for stand-alone article and there is no relevance outside of Paul's campaign. Location (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!! Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican that can beat Obama in 2012. Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican that will end the wars, stop the out of control spending, end the Federal Reserve Cartel, and win over the Democratic voters as well as Republican voters! Ron Paul is the Thomas Jefferson of our generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterDRichter (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — PeterRichter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thats true, but irrelevant.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge I am a Ron Paul supporter and an inclusionist, but I think its a bit premature on this. It may not come out to be anything in the end. Certainly I hope it does, but we wont know until we know. So until theres more mainstream usage and it is shown to have at least a plausible effect, I say we can it. The merge could mention how some progressives regressives :P are promoting it.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia differs from print encyclopedias in that, like the internet itself, it is immediate and dynamic. Many times it responds to the cultural tide with such immediacy it appears to drive public discourse. Like many today when I encounter an unfamiliar term, online or elsewhere, my first resource is to use my favorite search engine to discover its meaning. The phrase in question, Blue Republican, has appeared in several articles online. The Huffington Post article If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year) on 7/8/2011 has generated somewhat of a blogosphere buzz. A Yahoo search for the term Blue Republican on 7/21/2011 generated over two dozen solid hits in spite of a very energetic effort by partisans to marginalize the concept. If Wikipedia is to stay on the cutting-edge of public discourse and thought it must decide if it is willing to lead or, as print media must, simply follow. comment added by LesReasonover (talk • contribs) 09:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — LesReasonover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - Yes the term is recent and there is only a limited number of sources for the term as yet, but it's a movement happening right now and it's important because it's actually a mass exodus of people who previously voted Democrat over to the Republican side - something which simply doesn't happen in this hyper polarized America. This is a real movement gaining a lot of steam and traction and contrary to what has been written above this is NOT just about Ron Paul - this is about the failure of the Democratic Party to live up to its ideals, and the absolute loss of faith in Obama and the status quo political process. This movement is not so much pro-Ron Paul as it is anti war. Remember, for a Democrat to switch over to what is functionally Libertarian-ism requires a large scale abandonment of many Democrat objectives. This movement describes a core group of Democrats who have decided to make their displeasure with the Democrats known, despite their fierce opposition to the GOP - hence the need to modify the term Republican (make it Blue) just to be somewhat palatable! So this is my contention - it's an important movement in its own right, is not exclusively about Ron Paul, and deserves a Wiki page of its own based on that ground. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.24.133.226 (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — 89.24.133.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep -Wikipedia is out there so anyone can look up relevant material in order to make judgements. If Wikipedia begins to follow the politically correct media force that's engulfed the U.S., then they will no longer be a viable source for information. This particular "Blue Republican" article from the Huffington Post is generating enough interest that there will be many people wishing to search the internet to read up on it, including the movement that appears to have begun by R.Koerner's article. Why should Wikipedia not be a source on information on this topic? Why delete or redirect or merge. Someone searching for this topic will likely not search for it under Ron Paul. Redirecting or merging to Ron Paul would appear to be a serious bias on the part of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaylyn512 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Gaylyn512 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Per preceding comments "Why .... redirect or merge. Someone searching for this topic will likely not search for it under Ron Paul." If it is merged & redirected, the reader will not have to search for it under Ron Paul, they can enter "Blue Republican" in the search box and it will link directly to the section in the article to which it was redirected. Why do this? Because, at the present time, there is not enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources on the subject to meet the general notability guideline and thus justify a stand-alone article. Should there be an increase in significant coverage in reliable media sources, however, the article could easily be reinstated.--JayJasper (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This falls under WP:CLUB, WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:POLITICIANS, and arguably others. True Blue Republican is obviously a 'True Blue' Republican where Blue Republican is easily recognized as a Democratic ideology leaning Republican. Blue States are obviously Democratic. Red States are obviously Republican. Blue Dog Democrats are Democratic Politicians that must vote somewhat conservatively and Blue Republicans are Democratic Voters who must vote Republican to keep a NeoCon from winning the nomination. The group has established themselves as Democrats who want Ron Paul. It would be appropriate to link to Wikis containing Ron Paul, but the Blue Republicans are a group separate from Ron Paul's campaign. It is little different than a PAC. No other group has claimed the name and the group is gaining popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theendisfar (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Theendisfar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - Someone needs to explain the HARM that is caused by keeping this entry. It may be relatively new, but it is extremely timely, as the primary season is virtually upon us. Moreover, deletion of a HARMLESS / HELPFUL entry like this gives fire to the Consp. Theorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeptic14 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Skeptic14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


KEEP THIS is my vote. It is accurate in it's description of the new coinage of the phrase. Wiki ought to delete only INACCURATE information. This does not meet that criteria. I often turn to Wiki to find the definition of new terms, old terms I have forgotten, etc. Please keep this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.8 (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — 24.158.225.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Merge. no need to have a separate page for something that would appear if searched, if it is merged. Not only is the phrase new, the article is not particularly well written.— 184.91.236.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blue_Republican&oldid=1141893729"