Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat In Name Only (5th nomination)

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 keep. Consensus is the same as before. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat In Name Only

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

Non-notable neologism, probably derived from the more common (and documented) term Republican In Name Only. {{Refimprove}}-tagged since 2006, but none of the article's 5 sources use either the terms DINO or in name only. I imagine someone has used the term DINO at some point, but it lacks the weight RINO has, and (we at least once believed) the mere existence of a term does not itself make it an encyclopedic subject. Lacking sources about the term, the article attempts an unsourced essay on Conservative Democrats, and is redundant with that so-named article.

One cannot discuss US Republican politics online for long before some hero asserts The Democrats do the same thing and are just as bad. However, I don't believe Wikipedia requires such a parity with the Republican In Name Only article.

I'm noticing just now there are 4 previous nominations. I should probably read those and find out why this nomination is doomed to fail. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment: as far as DINO being a non-notable newlogism, some quick googling turned up a bunch of book sources with one going back 14 years. Here's half a dozzen or so

Casper, Barry M. (2000). Lost in Washington: Finding the Way Back to Democracy in America. Univ of Massachusetts Press. p. 51. ISBN 1-55849-247-X.
Yager, Edward M. (2006). Ronald Reagan's Journey: Democrat to Republican. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-7425-4421-5.
Bardach, Ann Louise (2004). Cuba Confidential: The Extraordinary Tragedy of Cuba, its Revolution and its Exiles. Penguin Books Limited. p. [http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=TPhdJf22v44C&pg=PT521&dq=%22democrat+in+name+only%22 521. ISBN 978-0-14-193554-6.
Peterson, Peter G. (2004). Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. [1]. ISBN 978-0-374-70491-9.
MacAllister, Craig M. (2009). New England's Calhounities: The Henshaw Faction of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, 1828--1850. ProQuest. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-109-11509-3.
Yost, Richard (2014). Watching Politics from the Cheap Seats: The Story of the NEPA Freedom Writers. Dorrance Publishing. p. 62. ISBN 978-1-4809-6162-3.
Reeves, Andrée E. Congressional Committee Chairmen: Three Who Made an Evolution. University Press of Kentucky. p. 57. ISBN 0-8131-3279-7.
Herzig, Frolik &. Winnie Frolik &. Billy; Herzig, Winnie Frolik & Billy (2009). 51 Women Senators?: Will We Ever Have 51 Women Senators? When? How Will They Represent Us?. iUniverse. p. [2]. ISBN 978-1-4401-9303-3.
Conlan, Timothy J. Intergovernmentalizing the classroom : federal involvement in elementary and secondary education. DIANE Publishing. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-4289-2831-2.

This 1998 Chicago Tribune article uses the term. I'm guessing that earlier instances of its use could be turned up.

Perhaps the article ought to use material from some of these and cite them in support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's a pretty good list that was posted at the 4th nomination that appears to have led to a pretty sound keep consensus. It was posted by Croctotheface, who in turn credited Jreferee. I'll copy/paste it again here despite the articles not being linked because, assuming good faith that they do in fact exist, the titles indicate all of them deal with this concept directly: --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Newsday (October 23, 1994) Campaign '04: Some Democrats in Name Only Many of Assembly's GOP incumbents face weak, poorly funded challenges in Suffolk. Section: News Page A55.
- South China Morning Post (July 24, 2004) A democrat in name only. Page 2.
- Miller, Dawn. (October 30, 2004) The Charleston Gazette Dinos and Rinos and liars, oh my! Section: Editorial; Page 4A.
- Jacklin, Michele. (March 13, 2005) The Hartford Courant Democrat in name only? Leftist bloggers dog Lieberman. Section: Commentary; Page C3.
- Rubin, Richard. (June 17, 2005) The Charlotte Observer Out of the mayor's race, Cannon fires off shots. He criticizes Madans, McCrory, "Democrats in name only." Section: Local; Page 5B.
- Boston Herald (January 11, 2006) Editorial; Where DINOs now roam Section: Editorial; Page 28.
- Zremski, Jerry. (July 12, 2006) The Buffalo News At times, Higgins votes with the GOP. Record on key issues prompts liberals to attack congressman as "Democrat in name only". Section: News; Page A1.
- Ashby, Charles. (August 20, 2006) The Pueblo Chieftain GOP challenger says give voters a choice: Susan Pelto says she's out for "DINO" votes.
- Groves, Isaac. (November 5, 2006) Times-News Many local voters are Democrats in name only.
- Ferguson, Andrew. (November 26, 2006) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette A rare bird joins the Washington Aviary. But will Jim Webb, a Democart in Name Only, turn out to be a dynamo or dodo? Section: Editorial; Page H3.
- Koff, Stephen. (August 16, 2007) Cleveland Plain Dealer "You're a Democrat in name only" Ex-candidate Hackett reveals Kucinich slam. Section: Metro; Page B2.
Keep, multiple usages of the term in reliable sources, including news, books (used as far back as 1910), and in scholarly journal articles. Although the article might have some problems, it doesn't appear to be so bad as to WP:TNT; see WP:NOTCLEANUP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Republicans in Name Only. Only merge information about the term itself and its usage, not about conservative democrats, which belongs at conservative Democrats. Yes, it is notable, but we do not have articles for all notable subjects. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like the best solution to me. I'm not quite sure how to resolve the overlap between this and conservative Democrat. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article persistently have no sources for this term? Could this be like Humiliatrix, a common bit of wordplay that is by itself not a notable thing? If so, why merge it into an article about a notable thing? Republican in Name Only has Wikipedia:Coatrack issues already.

I think the considerable amount of "Conservative Democrat" content is unsourced and need not be merged to that article. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I would merge no more than the first two paragraphs from the lead to RINO. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first two paragraphs are completely unsourced. Sentences like "DINO is used by more ideological (politically speaking) members of the Democrats to counter fellow party members for their heterodox, or relatively moderate or conservative positions" will need sourcing; otherwise we assert that Democrats do this and it's not just something that pops up in articles by waggish writers. Of all the links provided above by Googling Keep voters, do any document this term as routinely used by Democrats with this intention? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is approaching the dead horse (or donkey) phase. AfD is not for ordinary editing fixes. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable term. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2014 (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.