Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Agenda of the Tea Party movement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article repeats much of the information in Tea Party movement. There isn't enough different information to justify another article. Moreover, it seems to be another means to wage content disputes over the tea party and related pages. I would suggest the page needs to be deleted and the section needs to be developed in the article Tea Party Movement. If it eventually makes sense to make a sub-page, do it at that point. Casprings (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and Casprings should be smacked with a trout for forum shopping. There was already an RFC on this very same question that was just closed today with a large number of participating editors. It may be reviewed on this Talk page. The proposed merge of this article into Tea Party movement failed. In fact, there was a consensus to keep the article. Patrolling admins, please close this speedily and Casprings, try improving the article. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Speedy keep - consensus seems to have been well and truly established in the discussion linked above. Consensus can change and editors should be encouraged to challenge consensus, but challenging it a few hours later seems like a pretty futile effort. Stalwart 111  05:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm clearly in the minority of legitimate editors here. This nomination is, I think, way out of process and is clearly in contravention of the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. That said, the community's consensus now seems to be that the article should be deleted without regard to processes that, to be fair, some might see as overly bureaucratic anyway. Being a big fan of WP:IAR, I respect their right to invoke it in this instance. Suggest this now be WP:SNOW closed. Stalwart 111  09:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete - This is a mish-mash of text that can be easily incorporated into the main article. Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Can" is not the same as "should." The subject matter or scope of the article is more than notable enough for its own separate article. Read the article. It has at least six quality peer-reviewed academic publications supporting it. Beyond notability, policy doesn't give us a lot of guidance here and it seems to be editors' choice. The editors expressed their choice in the RFC linked above. Consensus, when faced with the very same question just in the past few weeks, was to keep this article. You're beating a dead horse. Time to move on. If you feel it's a "mish mash" the solution is at your fingertips. Try improving the article. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete per above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you even read this discussion? This is already decided. It's reasonable to see attempts to challenge consensus after just a couple of days as gaming the system and WP:POVPUSHing. I will assume good faith, but if you don't like the article, improve it. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. I read the talk page, the merge proposal, and this page.  I noted the accusation of forum shopping, which seems to have some merit.  However, the person who proposed this deletion did not vote in the merge proposal, has not posted on the talk page, and his deletion proposal makes sense to me; if these are poor reasons to suspect that the charge of forum shopping is a judgment call, then it's because I have been awake for a long period of time.  I'm sure the closing admin will take into account the fact that this could be forum shopping and disregard any irrelevant votes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * NinjaRobotPirate, why do you feel it's appropriate to challenge consensus just a few hours after the discussion was closed? GoodeOldeboy (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect Delete Per Casprings. Note: upon further consideration I have changed my !vote to delete on the basis that it's unlikely people will specifically be searching for an agenda page if it's covered in the main article. N o f o rmation  Talk  19:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Has there been a change in WP:CONSENSUS policy that I've overlooked somehow? GoodeOldeboy (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary for you to respond to every comment here with the same point - you've made it clear enough. Whether the closer will see fit to incorporate your argument remains to be seen. However, I suspect that it won't be given much weight considering that local consensus does not override consensus in community forums like AFD and that WP is very much based on a system of checks and balances in the form of escalating DR. Any editor is free to express their !vote here - including you - but continuously repeating yourself is disruptive to the consensus process.  With that said, I have no intention of continuing this line of discussion so you'll have to agree to disagree (or don't, either way I'm not wikilawyering over it).  Lastly, your edit here is a very clear violation of WP:CANVAS which prohibits editors from soliciting opinions from other editors based on their known opinion, so please don't do that again.  N o f o rmation  Talk  23:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems to be redundant to the main article. Now that Arbcom has acted to keep activists away, it's time for a fresh start with the main article and forks like this should be cleared away to simplify that process. Warden (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic, this is the topic of an opinion essay. Inherent content fork of the main article. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no evidence of similar splits of content for any other political group. "Agenda of" is also a potential POV-pushing term. There is no other article anywhere that start with "agenda of". This subject can and should be covered in the article on the Tea Party Movement. What next, will we have Agenda of the United States Democratic Party?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.