Deletion of Turncoat

Comment: I do think the subject meets , by the sources identified in this discussion.   doesn't seem to apply here: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. .... such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." It seems clear to me that the sourcing exists beyond dictionary information to provide social and historical context, as a good encyclopedia entry should. Additional background from historian Andrew Hopper (see quotes).{{cite journal |last1=Hopper |first1=Andrew |title=The Self-Fashioning of Gentry Turncoats during the English Civil Wars |journal=Journal of British Studies |date=2010 |volume=49 |issue=2 |pages=236–257 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23265201 |issn=0021-9371 | quote = The words ''turncoat'' and ''renegado'', with the latter also implying apostasy, were in considerable use by the early seventeenth century, and both carried deeply negative connotations. The former was employed in John Foxe’s ''Acts and Monuments'' by 1570 and on the stage in Thomas Middleton’s ''Game at Chess'' by 1624. The civil wars made these terms more widespread, and defectors among the English gentry clearly did not wish to be associated with them.}}{{cite journal |last1=Hopper |first1=Andrew |title=Turncoats and Renegadoes: Changing Sides during the English Civil Wars |date=15 November 2012 |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575855.001.0001 |quote=Alongside 'Roundhead rogue' and 'popish Cavalier' stood 'turncoat'—a term in use since the 1560s but increasingly employed during the civil wars. From usage at Oxford and Westminster, it penetrated into everyday conversations in provincial villages and towns. Henry Cholmley, constable of Tunstall in Yorkshire's North Riding, stood accused of berating his neighbours as 'turncoats, saying they were not worthy to come into honest men's company
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTDIC)

Comment: example of  with an overgrown etymology and usage through . Do not believe it can be any more than this as most sources dealing with this word are just dictionaries/etymologies. A perfectly good entry already exists for this over on Wiktionary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICTDEF||WP:OR)

Comment: The nomination does not propose deletion.  And it makes it clear that that there are plenty of other pages about similar topics including treason, defection, betrayal, party switching, crossing the floor and so on.  Those are all distinct and separate pages and the nomination fails to make a good case why this particular one should be singled out for attention.  The topic has some significance in its historical and literal meaning and here's an ''https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Turncoats_and_Renegadoes/eWoVDAAAQBAJ?hl=en entire book about the topic'' to prove it.  The usual policies apply: , , , , &c
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:NEXIST||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: it is clear there is enough content to substantiate more than just a dictionary definition. I'm not sure why Traitor redirects to Treason and not to this article (or ''vice versa''). Traitor and Turncoat are far more synonymous than Traitor and Treason. Regardless, this term used to describe traitors https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Wordwatching/rZKN_l7-cLUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=turncoat+meaning&pg=PT164&printsec=frontcover has been in use since 1557 so I don't thinking  is in doubt. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but there are plenty of reasons to include important words and phrases beyond simple etymology
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING)