Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libtard (2nd nomination)

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. —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 01:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Libtard

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

A pejorative term that defines WP:NOT#DICT - #3 Usage, slang, or idiom guides ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - "libtard" is already a Wiktionary definition. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this to pass the GNG based off the coverage of the word, and discussion about whether or not it is offensive. The idea that a word cannot be in Wikipedia defies WP:WORDISSUBJECT, and as the rationale does not mention Notability I am unsure whether the nom has done a Before. FTR I remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuckservative (4th nomination) as an AFD for an offensive political-based word. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So how long does an article have to be to be more than "just a dic entry" L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^{FYI, the Republican pejoratives were deleted as well. If I knew how to dig up those old AfDs, I'd provide the links. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, as it fails to claim any notability. It's an open and shut fail of WP:NOTDIC as it fails to go beyond a simple definition of the term and its usage. Fails WP:WORDISSUBJECT because it fails to include any encyclopedic content.GliderMaven (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY--Rusf10 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. There's nothing here beyond a dictionary entry. --Michig (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that it's just a dictionary entry with some references added to make it seem like a topic worthy of an article. Nufy7 (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong soft redirect to Wiktionary. WP:SOFTSISP. Only four articles link here, but this article has been repeatedly recreated. Ꞷ umbolo 21:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or soft redirect per Nufy7. There are many other words suffixed with -tard (see Wiktionary:Category:English words suffixed with -tard), and this one is not particularly notable. 9³ 20:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term has seen enough of a popular usage today to deem it notable enough for Wikipedia's standards in my honest opinion. It is on Wiktionary, on the Oxford Dictionaries website, is used frequently on social media and now on actual media, such as various news outlets, both TV, internet, actual printed papers etc. I vote keep. --Luka1184 (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good arguments for including it in a dictionary. --Michig (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The word is more suited for a dictionary database than the encyclopedic equivalent. Good coverage and (at least) semi-widespread usage, but having it's own Wikipedia article? Nah, not yet. Especially not one as stubby as the current article. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2018 (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.