Talk:Boston Tea Party (political party)/Archive 1

Contesting the proposed deletion of this article
This statement is addressed to those who may wish this article to be considered for deletion. I am not the kind of person who goes around trying to advertise his own political party on websites like Wikipedia. I am not a member of the Boston Tea Party or of the Libertarian Party. I did not author or edit the previous article on the Boston Tea Party which was deleted, and I did not participate in the discussion on that article's deletion. I simply have a keen interest that third parties be mentioned in websites like Wikipedia. As a fervent believer in the democratic process, I strive to make available information about alternatives to the major parties. To prevent access to information on third parties is to inhibit the democratic process.

A reason that has been given for the deletion of this article is that this article seems to be a copy of the previous article, with no changes in its content that address the reasons for the earlier deletion. However, this newer article does have changes that address the reasons for the earlier deletion. I have included links to reliable third-party sources that are not identical to or affiliated with the Boston Tea Party. I have included a link to an article in the Miami Herald, by Associated Press writer Jessica Gresko. I have also included, for good fun in the spirit of the BTP itself, a link to the party overviews at The Melting Pot Project. As far as I know, neither of these webpages is part of a website run by a BTP member. Isaiah Sage (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be a recreation, just an article that doesn't resolve the problems brought up in the AfD. Still deleted.  Take it to WP:DRV, if you disagree.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Play fair. Since no one had linked to that deletion discussion, you should have done so if you wanted to invoke its reasoning.  —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes this article to be deleted, please explain the reasons for deletion. Also, where can I read the original reasons for the deletion? Because I was not involved in earlier (deleted) versions of this article, I feel that it is unfair for me to be held responsible for the earlier problems, whatever they were. If the problems in those versions exist in my version, please tell me what they are. Isaiah Sage (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * At this stage, the burden-of-proof is more on those who wish the article retained. In-so-far as the previous AfD is invoked, the issue is whether the requirements of ORG are met.  Please review these criteria, make any edits that you think are appropriate in its context, and then make your case for retention with respect to these criteria. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP. The effort to delete this article is so intense that it appears to me to be politically motivated: against policy, unethical, intolerable.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP. I am convinced the effort to delete this article is politically motivated by persons who can't see the benefits to competition in the Libertarian Party market space. I am also baffled by any effort to delete any article with even some substance that appeals to some number of people.  Bandwidth and storage are cheap, and their prices are dropping dramatically every year.  If a page were some commercial for some Ponzi scheme or floor wax and dessert topping, I could see deleting it as annoying spam.  But, the Boston Tea Party and other minor parties (e.g., the Libertarian Party) represent a curiosity to some, a social phenomenon rejecting the established political order to others, and the bright efforts of some 792 to 868 people.  Why be ugly about it?  Deletion-ism seems like an exceedingly silly hobby. I also find myself reviewing the criteria for notability and finding no particular application to political parties.  Coverage by other sources seems of some significance, and several of the publications referenced (New Statesman, LewRockwell.com, Last Free Voice, Independent Political Report, The Miami Herald, Ballot Access News, Liberty for America, and CNN) have their own Wikipedia entries.  I guess the committed deletion-ist would now challenge LewRockwell.com and The Miami Herald's entries as not notable, so that the deletion of those entries could cascade into a deletion of this and other entries. Whee! Planetaryjim (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no current AfD debate on this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP. There seems to be an ongoing effort on the part of Mr. Rubin, for purely partisan political purposes, to delete this article from Wikipedia. Notability as a concern is unsustainable: In its short existence, the Boston Tea Party has elected two candidates to public office, boasts one federal appointee to public office among its active membership, is now an established political party in the state of Florida, achieved ballot access for its 2008 presidential slate in three states, and has been profiled by mainstream national print media (including the Associated Press) and mainstream national television (including Fox News). There's no reasonable argument that it has not achieved sufficient notability for Wikipedia inclusion. Thomaslknapp (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD G4
An article with so many citations to verifiable sources cannot be speedy deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem for non-admins is that they have no way of comparing the references given here to the references given in the deleted version. If it's decided again that the subject fails our notability guidelines for orgs, will it go through the same cycle?  It's been deleted twice already this week. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter, all editors need to go by are the current text and supporting citations. Although the org itself is small, the cited independent coverage as it now stands clearly shows enough notability to skirt any CSD A7. Some articles go through half a dozen or more AfDs but I would strongly suggest waiting until the election cycle stateside has ended before AfDing this article again. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't going to - I just wanted to ensure that if I work on copyediting the article again (like I did prior to its last deletion) that it isn't deleted again. Any chance of history-merging the old version? It's got an infobox the current one could use. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Past speedy deletions may have been ok, but as I said, the article as it is now can't be speedied. I also think it unlikely the article could be deleted through another AfD.  Meanwhile I've fetched the infobox and restored it:  I'd rather not restore the whole history since the article has been recreated rather than restored through DRV. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas L. Knapp
Since you geniuses all decided he wasn't notable enough for his own article, where do I put this link to the Missouri Secretary of State's website recording the EIGHT THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX votes he received  as the Libertarian Party candidate for United_States_Congress in Missouri's 2nd Congressional District? Evidently those 8,576 people found him notable enough to give him their precious votes. -- Davidkevin (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid being a candidate for Congress is not notable. Besides, I (Arthur Rubin) got more votes than that for California State Assembly in 1982.... — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How is running for Congress not notable? It strikes me as pretty notable, particularly in concert with other activities.  And even if you did get more votes for the State Assembly, that doesn't make his votes non-notable.  In fact, by getting over 2% of the vote, he's kept the Libertarian Party on the ballot in that Congressional District another four years (the minimum vote requirement under Missouri law for a minor party to stay ballot-qualified).
 * I remember you from LASFS, over 25 years ago. You were so quiet I'm not sure I ever heard you speak.  I can't imagine how you could run for any political office.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:POLITICIAN. I realize that's a guideline, but it suggests his running for Congress is not notable.  (If that's correct, California has a more sensible Party certification requirement.  A party stays on the ballot if it receives 2% of the vote for some state-wide Constitutional office (there are 6, IIRC), or maintains a membership roll of 100,000.  Out of over 10 votes in the 2008 Presidential election, a requirement of 100,000 isn't bad.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Say, I was at LASFS 25 years ago! But I don't remember how many votes I got for Assembly in 1994. —Tamfang (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We never met, although I heard of you later and dated Rowan before you married her. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * * Arthur is right. Merely being a candidate doesn't meet the notability requirement. Being elected does.  If simply running was all it took, could you imagine articles on the hundreds of people who ran for Gov of CA after the Davis recall?  Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of moving Niteshift36's contribution out from the middle of Davidkevin's. —Tamfang (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that Knapp has now announced his candidacy for both the Boston Tea and Libertarian Party nominations for President in 2012, does that make any difference to you with regard to his notability? -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All he needs to be notable on WP is a couple of profiles of him written in somewhat mainstream publications. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist?
Is this basically an anarchist party? Lightning Thundercat (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. But the polite word for anarchist is "libertarian." :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But do you know any polite anarchists. As a "libertarian" but not an anarchist, I resent that remark.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, libertarians I was just kidding. I actually think the libertarians have lots of good ideas. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Including us anarchists, or in contrast? —Tamfang (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously, and frankly, I have a problem with the concept of anarchism in modern society. Some people who call themselves that seem to be more like libertarians, that is want to have less or no government or other authority.  That's a position that I respect although I don't altogether agree.  On the other hand some people calling themselves anarchists seem to be driven by their emotional feeling against the authorities they live under and are acting out without a plan and without seeming to have to much consideration for the welfare of other people.  Some also seem to be "useful idiots" of the far left.  (hmm...Useful idiot...it that an article?) I hope my answer was helpful, since you asked. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh.


 * Some libertarians are anarchists. Some are not.


 * Some anarchists are libertarians. Some are not.


 * Neither word is a complete description of anyone without a further modifier. Nobody is insulting anybody.  And nobody has attempted to answer my question above whether Tom Knapp's notability is different now that he's running for President.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to offend anyone, yet I do think that anarchists need to work on their public image. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that Arthur Rubin deleted the article on The Boston Tea Party at least once in the above controversy. Perhaps he doesn't like anarchists, as his objection to anarchists being called libertarians seems to signify.  Arthur Rubin also nominated my page for deletion (James Eric Davidson).  The suggestion on this discussion page that the deletion was politically motivated does seem consistent with these facts.  I am not nominating Arthur's page for deletion, though it is amusing to read the discussion on his page about various reasons people wonder about his notability, or the validity of various parts of his biography.  I guess not being the Libertarian Party makes The Boston Tea Party offensive to Mr. Rubin.  I'm really not sure why.  As someone who has gone out of my way to get to know several dozen of the members of The Boston Tea Party, I would be happy to assure him that very few of them self-identify as anarchists.  My own preference is for a much smaller government. Planetaryjim (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted the page as a recreation of a previously deleted page, although that deletion was overturned at DRV. I still don't see a significant difference between the deleted article and the then recreated article, but am willing to abide by consensus.  My reasons for disliking the article are none of your business; they're not what you think, but they do make it difficult for me to make constructive edits to the article, and it still needs a lot of work.  I don't know if the Party is anarchist or minarchist (and I did know SEK3, so I know what an anarchist is.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I ask, without any intention of antagonism or hostility, what it is which makes it difficult for you to make constructive edits to this article? And what would need to change to make it easier for you to be constructive in this context?


 * I have no desire to violate your privacy, but if reasonable accomodation can be made so that all are satisfied, I am willing to work toward that. -- Davidkevin (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag Problems
This article will require verifiable, reliable source cites. Scribner (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific? The article is fairly heavily cited with 14 inline citations for about six short paragraphs of text.  My sense is that you should cite individual sentences/phrases with citation needed or Or to mark where your specific concerns lie, rather than an article-wide tag at the top.  N2e (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are currently 17 links with nothing marked "needs citation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.46.181 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)