Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unreconstructed Whitlamite

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unreconstructed Whitlamite

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

Non-notable label (and dictionary definition content that could never be expanded much). The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NEO and is not notabile. - Pmedema (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; a very, very long way from a notable term. Astounding that it has survived this long. Frickeg (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. This could be rolled into a glossary of Australian political terms or similar, but isn't a viable article. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Survived this long - it was an orphan - which is why I see deorphaning as an important way of getting the wikipedia community's attention to articles - with whatever outcome. I do think the term has encyclopedic value but will not make a comment to the contrary re article viability. I do like Nick-D's suggestion. Eno Lirpa (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll say this for the Aussies, when they want to put a guy down, they don't mince words. As for all the unresonstructed Whitlamites trying to delete this article, I am putting you on notice: there are sources. (end of joke section) This AdD and, indeed, this unsourced article appears to be an example of our linked presentism and paywall problems. This term was in pretty wide use in Australia. I imagine that in 10-15 years, regferences to the Bowling Green Massacre will draw similarly blank looks. I'll do a little more sourcing in the few minutes I still have available, but it requires the use of paywalled searches. That is a problem for which I have no fix.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that although editors have been asserting that there are no sources, there was, in fact, a long list of bare URLs form which the article can be sourced. I added some text and a few in-line sources form my own searches before noticing those. Judging fomr comments, other editors also failed to notice that, despite the lack of in-line reference, tehis neologism did includde a long list of sources tht cold be used to expand the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - A dicdef explanation of an almost-never-used neologism, and a mention of a character in a book using the neologism, doth not notability make. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a look at that list of sources at the bottom of the page, left by an editor years ago?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what it does argue for is WP:PRESERVE via redirect, (I only wish there were wikipedia entriesexplaining the political epithets referring to governments and political movements long dead; they would be so useful when decoding old texts) Back to the present, where to redirect, perhaps to Whitlam Government? I will defer to Aussies on tthe best destination.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at it is a somewhat esoteric page. I read political history for pleasure and I still think this article serves little purpose. Otherwise we'd have articles for more or less each one of Keating's quips. An article on "cheats, cheats, cheats," "couldn't raffle a chicken in a pub," "frauds and mugs," and so on. This does make me chuckle, though, perhaps we should be adding these comments to Keating's wikiquotes page. Whatever you think of him, his humour and acidic tongue are really unmatched today.Vision Insider (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced, with a decent assertion of notability regarding the ALP's 1980's/90's internal tensions and economic policies. That separates it from a mere "insult" definition. Sure, it's never going to be more than a stub, but it's much more than dicdef.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2017 (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.