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 --JForget 23:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat In Name Only[edit]

Democrat In Name Only (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

From DRV relisting. Prodego ^talk 03:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said at the DRV, I think an article with this title needs to exist, but not this one. Delete and start over. Chick Bowen 03:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete: Per the last deletion reason. No reliable sources, thus unverifiable. Lets remember the Verifiability policy here "..inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..". - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with Republican In Name Only. I wonder if these links qualify as good sources - [- [1], [2]. The French Wikipedia also has an article on it - [3]. K a r n a (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Merging with RINO makes no sense, these are two differenmt issues, and while DINO is clearly derivative of RINO if it is worth including in wikipedia it should be given it's own section seperate from RINO. I am not sure how common this term is, but RINO is a very common term and an important part of debate on the political right in the US. Moheroy (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand - my suggestion was on the basis that "In Name Only" is the defining factor here. Applied to a Libertarian or Socialist, it would mean the same thing. When faced with possible deletion, I felt if DINO can be merged with RINO, it would be worth doing. K a r n a (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per the last AfD and the DR, there ARE sources, lots of them in fact. Croctotheface (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jreferee deserves credit for finding these sources, which I'll repost with full credit for the research going to him:

• 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.
• Google books
• Google scholar Croctotheface (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's clearly a notable political term in fairly common usage and there are plenty of sources above. If it needs some work then do the work. Nick mallory (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If we recognize the RINOs, we have to recognize the DINOs. Qworty (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Croctotheface. RINO and DINO are commonly used epithets in U.S. politics. • Gene93k (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously plenty of secondary sources available. Lankiveil (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, per the sources provided above. Is DINO derived from RINO, or is it the other way around? Let's keep both and let it be. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubbify and restart 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the consensus seems to generally be to keep the article, I'm actually OK with this option as well, so long as the article is not outright deleted again. Croctotheface 09:53, 1 December 2007 (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.