Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican establishment

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 delete. I have to give less weight to the "keep" views because they have not seriously addressed the argument that the topic as well as the contents are original research by synthesis. In view of this argument, I'd have expected somebody to cite a reliable source that defines what the "Republican establishment" is. Absent that, I must give our core policy WP:NOR commanding weight.  Sandstein  11:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republican establishment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article was probably created in response to recent political discourse where candidates branding themselves as mavericky independents denounced the "republican establishment". It then tries to pull together a definition of this bogeyman, based on a few National Review articles proposing what can be said to exist (essentially all things Republican) in lieu of the powerful 1930s party hierarchy, and a The Week article which (like many editorials) says the US Conservative movement (basically all that loves Reagan) is the Republican establishment. The Tea Party movement routinely uses the term to mean the current incumbents. All these things already have articles.

Since political figures are trying to say they are conservatives but not establishment, the article briefly tries to distinguish the establishment from social conservatives, a point made nowhere in the linked articles. A Pew Center poll cited toward the article's end neither defines "Establishment Conservatives" nor uses the term establishment at all. (Though this WP article's creator might be taking this from the Pew Center article's "Business Conservative", a label few of the above-mentioned political figures would use as a pejorative.)

After which the article struggles to narrate a history of the conflict based on figures denouncing the establishment, and impugning others as belonging to it. While the membership is not clearly defined, it appears Mitt Romney is in it, whereas Palin and Bachmann are fighters of it. Article quote:

Some people, such as Marco Rubio in 2016, can be viewed simultaneously as establishment and anti-establishment.

Phantoms fighting phantoms.

IMO, "Republican establishment" is not an identifiable thing, but a pairing of words that could be used to describe several things. If Wikipedia wants another political epithet article, rename to Practice of denouncing the "Republican establishment". If another WP:DICDEF article is desired, I have added to the article talk page three (3) very different things this term can be used for. Of these three things:

1. The current day scapegoat would be the abovementioned political epithet article.
2. The mid-1900s white shoe Republican professional institutional presence would need to be distinguished from Rockefeller Republicans; perhaps the latter might be considered more of a political presence. Either way, opinions seem to agree it had disappeared as a force by the 1988 suicide of George H. W. Bush's dignity.[1]
3. The Republican orthodoxy article would be (I imagine) an analysis of hegemonies or the control mechanisms enforcing them, somehow distinct from what is (or should be) already covered in Conservatism in the United States. Could be interesting, but would require some impressive sources to become anything but a conflict-prone ideological essay.

Otherwise delete as WP:OR sourced to WP:SYNTH via WP:INUNIVERSE. I am confident Bob Dole would agree. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:NOTESSAY. OtterAM (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This is an essential topic, especially this year. It is notable enough for every major newspaper to have dedicated articles to it. Media have defined it in clear terms. And it is a constant refrain of the 2016 election. We have thousands of articles about topics people disagree about and define in a multitude of conflicting ways. See anarchism, for instance. If you think it has essay components, rewrite it. Don't pretend this major phenomenon doesn't exist. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - an essential topic in this year's United States elections, and it is not so bad as to require a complete re-do. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep topic is real, and notable. Article needs improvement (what else is new?).E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC) changing iVote, see below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perhaps as this seems convincing enough for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Taking Sandstein's point. iVote reflexively, because OF COURSE there is a Republican establishment (Also because putting solid article up for AFD appears to be part of this year's aggressive, angry political campaign) HOWEVER, this article 1.) Fails to provide tight, reliably sourced definitions os what the Republican establishment means, and, more importantly, 2.) an article about this term is valueless since the two words used in juxtaposition "Republican establishment" convey all of the meaning(s) that an article might. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point; however, I think there is the potential for this article to be included within the encyclopedia. The subject is notable, and a very detailed article could be written from a neutral standpoint on the evolution of the Republican establishment, especially within the last decade. Hopefully this wouldn't duplicate too much information from the main Republican page, though inclusion there could also be an option. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - when I evaluate an article for deletion, my main focus is whether or not the subject is something that we should include on Wikipedia, without bias towards the actual content of the page. By that standard, this is a speedy keep, since the subject of the page is obviously a notable group of people. However, I do think that the page needs some major work. The lead section is far too long, and while there are a lot of references present, a significant portion of the content is not well referenced. For an article like this, I would expect some academic sources rather than just news; a quick search through my school's database shows some 50 relevant results within academic sources. I am focusing on another topic at the moment, but when I finish that in a day or so I would be glad to help rewrite the article. In the mean time, keep due to a notable subject and some good information on the current article. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject of this article is clearly notable. If I saw the title of the article, and not the content, I would be strongly be for keeping it. Sure, it has problems in it's current state, but these can be fixed. See WP:BEFORE. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 08:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I wondered whether there was a verifiable definition of what the subject actually was, as distinct from the other subjects mentioned in the nomination. After all, given the number of historians, commentators, and political scholars who write about U.S. politics it should be easy to find a source explaining this if it really is a concrete concept. My experience is that it's actually quite difficult to find anybody explaining who and what this subject actually is. When I found Hess & Broder 1967 I had hope, until I read what Denis William Brogan had to say:

  Indeed, so far as the book has a thesis, it is that there is no Republican Establishment (Brogan 1967, p. 52)

  The nominator has cited John Podhoretz on the article's talk page saying the same thing. Please point to an authority that doesn't merely mention this, but explains who and what it actually is.

  Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hess, Stephen; Broder, David S. (1967). The Republican Establishment: The Present and Future of the G.O.P. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Brogan, Denis William (1967). ""The Republican Establishment" by Stephen Hess and David S. Broder". Interplay. 1. Welkin Corporation: 52–53.

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.