247:
891:. More or less per what I said at the last at both of the last AfDs. Noticed that it seems practically inseparable from the "alt-right" concept, which, even with SPA !votes set aside, does not look to be heading towards deletion (i.e. it'll exist as a merge target). Obviously, my second choice becomes the only choice if
510:
to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Even the most casual perusal of the cited sources clearly demonstrates the topic of this article has been the subject of extensive coverage in multiple RS sources. A quick Google showed an almost endless number of hits. I'm sorry but this is not a
450:
This sentence more than applies to the subject being discussed here. It is not notable enough for its own article, but may warrant mention within another article. Ultimately, we're talking about a bunch of blog posts and a few news articles that hardly constitute encyclopedic knowledge, and if we
575:
The article itself says that it gained popular use last year. That's pretty new. I still agree with the previous contention that it is a neologism synonymous with RINO, and the fact that it traces it's origins to the use of the term cuckold on 4chan as an insult only further limits it's use to
375:
unless there are at least some academic sources dissecting and analyzing this thing. I honestly don't see the point in rushing to include every new neologism that pops up in the media or so-called "blogosphere" -- what are we all here for? We're here to build an encyclopedia, or rather
455:
reliable sources, of which there are extremely few (unless we want to get into tabloid and pundit material), altogether there is barely enough for an entire article. This neologism thing on
Knowledge has started to get out of hand, and I'm not hearing any arguments at all as to
838:
This concept is not entirely the same as RINO. As this article states, this term also has significant race and pornography undertones, so it is not the exact same concept. I would support linking this article in the "see also" of RINO and RINO in the "see also" of this
821:"Used for a small time only" - Notability is not temporary. "by a some conservatives and White supremacists" - And? Do we not have articles for every racial epithet?". This doesn't belong in wiktionary because it's not a real word and there is no set definition for it.
964:- notable because of the racially, sexually charged nature of the term. Notability is clear, partly because of the number of the articles specifically on the term. I'm not sure merging into alt-right or RINO is either of them a fair redirect.
556:
The word is not some new term in street slang. It is one that is being used by certain political constituencies and which has gained widespread coverage in the mainstream press and media. As such NOTDICTIONARY clearly does not apply. See
666:
Whatever minor infamy it had previously as a term seems to have disappeared- don't think there's been any coverage from reliable sources except for the initial reaction. Certainly hasn't become a notable pejorative in its own right.
515:. For the record, I find the term extremely distasteful. But taste is not in the guidelines. And the Washington Post, Salon and the Southern Poverty Law Center (to name just a few of the sources) are not the National Enquirer. -
460:
this term deserves its own article at this point in time beyond claims that enough reliable sources exist, and this in spite of the fact that most of the sources are blog and tabloid fodder. Are we to allow
Knowledge to become
576:
communities and sources where referencing a type of fetish so casually like that is acceptable. The page you referenced mentions notability of the word, which I don't believe this has, especially compared to RINO itself.
198:
719:
The cited source coverage in the article runs from roughly July of 2015 through
February of this year. A Google News search yielded further RS coverage as recently as this month. SUSTAINED is not an issue here.
798:
96:
91:
86:
254:
778:
192:
756:
399:: the word has, if anything, become more widely known since the previous nomination. Its notability has nothing to do with whether we like the people who use it. –
151:
599:
None of which is relevant. The article subject has received very extensive coverage in mainsteam RS sources. It clearly satisfies GNG. Again we seem to be back to
590:
So it would be limited to some conservatives and white supremacists in certain online communities, which would make the group of (potential) users even smaller. --
81:
158:
52:. As previously, opinions remain split about whether this flower of the English language is a notable enough neologism to warrant article-level coverage.
896:
415:
What I wanted to point out is its limited use making it, in my opinion, not notable enough, not that it is used by groups that are unlikeable. --
371:. This is an extremely new neologism (hasn't even been a year that it's been around, right?) and it really makes no sense to include it in an
668:
981:
This is distinct from RINO, and if you follow the internet discussions on the 2016 election, you're bound to see it sooner or later. --
448:"If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article."
263:
124:
119:
1046:
865:
293:
128:
1011:
990:
973:
956:
931:
908:
848:
830:
810:
790:
770:
748:
729:
714:
694:
676:
656:
641:
612:
594:
585:
570:
547:
524:
476:
437:
406:
389:
237:
64:
17:
229:
Term that only has been used for a short period of time by a some conservatives and White supremacists. Can be covered under
111:
213:
916:
to , where a short section already exists. This is a failed neologism. Here is my hews google search, and it's paltry
861:
826:
652:
501:
180:
279:
495:
252:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
1030:
40:
986:
822:
672:
648:
174:
944:
888:
230:
325:
170:
1026:
927:
725:
690:
608:
600:
566:
520:
512:
463:
433:
36:
538:, simply because WP:NOTDICT, especially not one for recent neologisms and slang within niche groups.
309:
283:
220:
920:
982:
969:
901:
700:
581:
543:
268:
206:
853:
840:
558:
745:
315:
246:
115:
1047:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/13/cuckservative-republicans-conservatives-jeb-bush
1007:
857:
844:
806:
786:
428:
The in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources is more than sufficient to satisfy GNG. -
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1025:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
952:
923:
765:
721:
709:
686:
685:
It has received extensive coverage in multiple RS sources and notability is not temporary. -
634:
630:
604:
562:
516:
429:
368:
186:
591:
472:
442:
The article does not satisfy most of the criteria for notability. That said, I quote from
416:
404:
385:
234:
999:
965:
919:, binging the search up by most recent makes it clear that this neologism did not take
577:
539:
55:
917:
511:
close call. It clearly passes GNG. The argument for deletion appears to be a case of
443:
107:
70:
1003:
802:
782:
343:
331:
299:
145:
278:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
948:
760:
704:
468:
400:
381:
364:
892:
880:
1002:
in this AfD. It's a horrid epithet that is not going away anytime soon.
744:
Not encyclpedic in here, it should been transwikied into wikictionary.
380:
of us are here for this purpose. This is not an encyclopedic article.
647:
Which is why none of the sources come from said unverifiable source.
1019:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
241:
799:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
272:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
559:
When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject
141:
137:
133:
629:
The creator is obviously an expert on terminology and
205:
97:
Articles for deletion/Cuckservative (4th nomination)
92:
Articles for deletion/Cuckservative (3rd nomination)
87:
Articles for deletion/Cuckservative (2nd nomination)
779:list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1033:). No further edits should be made to this page.
757:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
292:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
262:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
219:
8:
797:Note: This debate has been included in the
777:Note: This debate has been included in the
755:Note: This debate has been included in the
796:
776:
754:
266:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
489:From WP:GNG... "If a topic has received
286:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
1039:
79:
945:Republican in Name Only#Cuckservative
889:Republican In Name Only#Cuckservative
7:
895:is deleted. Also see my comments at
82:Articles for deletion/Cuckservative
77:
24:
245:
699:Notability should, however, be
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
282:on the part of others and to
1065:
1022:Please do not modify it.
1012:19:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
991:01:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
974:10:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
957:03:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
932:00:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
909:18:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
849:13:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
831:19:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
811:18:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
791:18:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
771:16:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
749:02:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
730:16:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
715:16:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
695:16:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
677:00:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
657:20:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
642:21:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
613:16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
595:09:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
586:22:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
571:20:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
548:19:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
525:15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
477:15:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
438:13:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
407:07:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
390:07:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
238:06:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
65:17:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
324:; accounts blocked for
294:single-purpose accounts
264:policies and guidelines
231:Republican In Name Only
76:AfDs for this article:
866:few or no other edits
464:The National Enquirer
868:outside this topic.
491:significant coverage
451:limit ourselves to
276:by counting votes.
255:not a majority vote
998:per past AfDs and
883:(first choice) or
869:
813:
793:
773:
633:. Ahem, or not.♦
363:Knowledge is not
357:
356:
353:
280:assume good faith
63:
1056:
1049:
1044:
1024:
906:
904:
897:that ongoing AfD
851:
639:
631:Urban Dictionary
496:reliable sources
369:Urban Dictionary
351:
339:
323:
307:
288:
258:, but instead a
249:
242:
224:
223:
209:
161:
149:
131:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1031:deletion review
1020:
902:
900:
769:
713:
635:
341:
329:
313:
297:
284:sign your posts
166:
157:
122:
106:
103:
101:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1062:
1060:
1051:
1050:
1038:
1036:
1035:
1015:
1014:
993:
983:Jaakko Sivonen
976:
959:
934:
911:
903:Rhododendrites
870:
833:
815:
814:
794:
774:
763:
746:KGirlTrucker87
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
707:
680:
679:
669:PeterTheFourth
660:
659:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
601:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
551:
550:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
513:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
504:of the subject
482:
481:
480:
479:
422:
421:
420:
419:
410:
409:
393:
392:
355:
354:
250:
227:
226:
163:
102:
100:
99:
94:
89:
84:
78:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1061:
1048:
1043:
1040:
1034:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
994:
992:
988:
984:
980:
977:
975:
971:
967:
963:
960:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
935:
933:
929:
925:
921:
918:
915:
912:
910:
905:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
850:
846:
842:
837:
834:
832:
828:
824:
820:
817:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
795:
792:
788:
784:
780:
775:
772:
767:
762:
758:
753:
752:
751:
750:
747:
743:
731:
727:
723:
718:
717:
716:
711:
706:
702:
698:
697:
696:
692:
688:
684:
683:
682:
681:
678:
674:
670:
665:
662:
661:
658:
654:
650:
646:
645:
644:
643:
640:
638:
632:
628:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
597:
596:
593:
589:
588:
587:
583:
579:
574:
573:
572:
568:
564:
560:
555:
554:
553:
552:
549:
545:
541:
537:
534:
533:
526:
522:
518:
514:
509:
505:
503:
498:
497:
492:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
459:
454:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
424:
423:
418:
414:
413:
412:
411:
408:
405:
402:
398:
395:
394:
391:
387:
383:
379:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
358:
349:
345:
337:
333:
327:
321:
317:
311:
305:
301:
295:
291:
287:
285:
281:
275:
271:
270:
265:
261:
257:
256:
251:
248:
244:
243:
240:
239:
236:
232:
222:
218:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:Find sources:
164:
160:
156:
153:
147:
143:
139:
135:
130:
126:
121:
117:
113:
109:
108:Cuckservative
105:
104:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
72:
71:Cuckservative
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1042:
1021:
1018:
995:
978:
961:
940:
936:
913:
884:
876:
872:
835:
818:
741:
740:
701:WP:SUSTAINED
663:
636:
626:
625:
535:
507:
500:
494:
490:
462:
457:
452:
447:
425:
396:
377:
373:encyclopedia
372:
367:, let alone
360:
347:
335:
326:sockpuppetry
319:
308:; suspected
303:
289:
277:
273:
267:
259:
253:
228:
216:
210:
202:
195:
189:
183:
177:
167:
154:
57:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
924:E.M.Gregory
864:) has made
722:Ad Orientem
687:Ad Orientem
637:Dr. Blofeld
605:Ad Orientem
563:Ad Orientem
517:Ad Orientem
502:independent
430:Ad Orientem
193:free images
742:Transwiki:
365:Wiktionary
260:discussion
58:Sandstein
1027:talk page
1000:Blythwood
966:Blythwood
893:alt-right
881:alt-right
823:'''tAD'''
803:• Gene93k
783:• Gene93k
649:'''tAD'''
578:Tpdwkouaa
540:Tpdwkouaa
499:that are
316:canvassed
310:canvassed
269:consensus
37:talk page
1029:or in a
914:Redirect
885:Redirect
877:Redirect
862:contribs
839:article.
508:presumed
506:, it is
348:username
342:{{subst:
336:username
330:{{subst:
320:username
314:{{subst:
304:username
298:{{subst:
152:View log
39:or in a
1004:Bearian
854:Ingebot
841:Ingebot
312:users:
199:WP refs
187:scholar
125:protect
120:history
949:Jarble
761:clpo13
705:clpo13
664:Delete
627:Delete
592:Laber□
536:Delete
444:WP:GNG
417:Laber□
361:Delete
235:Laber□
171:Google
129:delete
941:merge
873:Merge
469:Laval
401:Smyth
382:Laval
290:Note:
214:JSTOR
175:books
159:Stats
146:views
138:watch
134:links
16:<
1008:talk
996:Keep
987:talk
979:Keep
970:talk
962:Keep
953:talk
937:Keep
928:talk
899:. —
858:talk
845:talk
836:Keep
827:talk
819:Keep
807:talk
787:talk
766:talk
726:talk
710:talk
691:talk
673:talk
653:talk
609:talk
582:talk
567:talk
544:talk
521:talk
473:talk
453:only
434:talk
426:Keep
397:Keep
386:talk
378:most
207:FENS
181:news
142:logs
116:talk
112:edit
943:to
939:or
907:\\
887:to
879:to
603:. -
561:. -
493:in
458:why
344:csp
340:or
332:csm
300:spa
274:not
221:TWL
150:– (
1010:)
989:)
972:)
955:)
947:.
930:)
860:•
852:—
847:)
829:)
809:)
801:.
789:)
781:.
759:.
728:)
703:.
693:)
675:)
655:)
611:)
584:)
569:)
546:)
523:)
475:)
467:?
446:,
436:)
388:)
350:}}
338:}}
328::
322:}}
306:}}
296::
233:.
201:)
144:|
140:|
136:|
132:|
127:|
123:|
118:|
114:|
1006:(
985:(
968:(
951:(
926:(
922:.
875:/
856:(
843:(
825:(
805:(
785:(
768:)
764:(
724:(
720:-
712:)
708:(
689:(
671:(
651:(
607:(
580:(
565:(
542:(
519:(
471:(
432:(
403:\
384:(
352:.
346:|
334:|
318:|
302:|
225:)
217:·
211:·
203:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
173:(
165:(
162:)
155:·
148:)
110:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.