Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depublican

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 speedy delete both, Depublican by User:SchuminWeb as G3, Depublican Party by User:JamesBWatson as A7. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depublican

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

I contested the prod on this myself only because I think AfD would work better in this case. Anyway, this is a non-notable neologism that appears to want to be a spin-off of Republicrat (which has questionable notability itself). There isn't a speedy criterion for this kind of thing. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the talk page has the creator full-on admitting that s/he created the term. This is a borderline speedy now. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do the "Yes Men" have a page? Do they qualify as a political organization? ----- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashmodem (talk • contribs) 09:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Erpert (let's talk about it) 14:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the purpose of rhetorical questions in this matter is, but needless to say, the "Yes Men" are also in the position of being a highly notable group. In my honest opinion, they appear to be more of a political movement than organization of individuals, but that point I find to be moot. What does them being a political organization have to do with the matter at hand? Additionally, I should point out that with regard to Depublican, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 23:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Through what seems to be an act of coincidence, should such a thing exist, Republicrat has been nominated for deletion. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 23:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy Delete WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and request more tin foil for Crashmodem. Vodello (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a hoax, or else promotion of a non-notable political invention. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Delete I'm not quite sure that a "pull-the-trigger-it's-a-hoax!" is quite valid here, but it definitely is evident self-promotion that is nothing short of spam for the purpose of seemingly driving visitors to their site to gain hits, and potential revenue while trying to use non-existent terminology in the process - possibly for the purpose of garnering attention by coining a term in the political world. Additionally, the page is nothing more than a "definition" (this is not the Urban Dictionary), and it's sister "article" is Depublican Party which shares in the attribute that it pushes so much POV that it's not even remotely close to funny. It also inherently violates WP:OR, has absolutely no third-party reliable sources for the purpose of verification, and relies entirely upon it's own website for promotion and verification of said article up for deletion which is being vigorously defended by ~~what we can only assume is~~ the website's owner which further violates WP:COI. Did I mention, WP:N? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 20:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See: Vodello (above) ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 20:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Note: A quick Google search turns up absolutely nothing but links to the owners site, YouTube videos uploaded by the creator (which seem to be directly challenging "Republicrats" - which I question the notability of as is, but that's another matter), and links to this Wikipedia article (and AfD). If that's not a grab at attention for the purpose of promotion, I don't know what is. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 21:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NEOLOGISM. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. elektrik SHOOS 22:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have speedy-deleted Depublican Party under CSD A7 (no indication of importance). I think it was also borderline for CSD G11(unambiguous advertising or promotion). I have declined a speedy deletion nomination of Depublican under CSD A7, as it does not qualify. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Depublican. No evidence of notability at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEO. Shadowjams (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, WP:NEO - and looking like WP:SNOW applies as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NEO. The only "sources" I found for this are cases of newspaper articles that didn't OCR correctly. They use the word "Republican", but the scanning software rendered it as "Depublican". Imzadi 1979 → 07:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nonsensical hoax. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Seemingly a smartassish retort to "Republicrat," which is a term actually used that may or may not be worthy of inclusion. Carrite (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2010 (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.