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.
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.
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
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: --— Rhododendritestalk \\
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.
Miller, Dawn. (October 30, 2004)
The Charleston GazetteDinos and Rinos and liars, oh my! Section: Editorial; Page 4A.
Jacklin, Michele. (March 13, 2005)
The Hartford CourantDemocrat in name only? Leftist bloggers dog Lieberman. Section: Commentary; Page C3.
Rubin, Richard. (June 17, 2005)
The Charlotte ObserverOut 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 NewsAt 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 ChieftainGOP challenger says give voters a choice: Susan Pelto says she's out for "DINO" votes.
Groves, Isaac. (November 5, 2006)
Times-NewsMany local voters are Democrats in name only.
Ferguson, Andrew. (November 26, 2006)
Pittsburgh Post-GazetteA 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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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: --— Rhododendritestalk \\
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.
Miller, Dawn. (October 30, 2004)
The Charleston GazetteDinos and Rinos and liars, oh my! Section: Editorial; Page 4A.
Jacklin, Michele. (March 13, 2005)
The Hartford CourantDemocrat in name only? Leftist bloggers dog Lieberman. Section: Commentary; Page C3.
Rubin, Richard. (June 17, 2005)
The Charlotte ObserverOut 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 NewsAt 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 ChieftainGOP challenger says give voters a choice: Susan Pelto says she's out for "DINO" votes.
Groves, Isaac. (November 5, 2006)
Times-NewsMany local voters are Democrats in name only.
Ferguson, Andrew. (November 26, 2006)
Pittsburgh Post-GazetteA 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.
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
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
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
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.