Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Tea Party (political party)


 * 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. The group seems to fail the notability guidelines at WP:ORG. The keep rationale for all three keep voters was "per verifiable existence." Obviously that is not our standard for inclusion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Boston Tea Party (political party)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article describes what seems to be a non-notable minor political party. I will admit to not being completely positive as to the inclusion criteria for minor political parties, so this will be a learning experience! No reliable secondary coverage (that I could find), all references are to the party's own web site. Badger Drink (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Totally non-notable. It doesn't look like they ever even ran any candidates. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non notable.  KleenupKrew (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Vital part of the Ron Paul presidential campaign. I'd also like to know what makes it non-notable. This isn't an article about my father's ex-cousin's wife... Monobi (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have sources noting this I'd be glad to see them, but it isn't noted on the article's page at all. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, don't be lazy and look it up yourself. teaparty07.com, abcnews.com, abcnews.com, boston.com and the lists go on and on. Monobi (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So I checked those links you sent, and it seems that rather than referring to this political party, they are referring to an event that the Ron Paul campaign held that was unrelated. The party itself does not appear to be involved in this at all. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This party & supporters helped raise millions for Ron Paul, which was the largest amount of money raised in 24 hours in the history of Presidential Elections. If this is non-notable, then we have a serious problem. Monobi (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They aren't the same groups. This organization is not the same, at least as far as I can tell, as the organizers for the Boston Tea Party Ron Paul fundraising event. In fact, searching their website for Ron Paul turned up no results. The article itself doesn't mention anything about this. While it may be appropriate to have an article on Paul's Boston Tea Party fundraiser, these guys had nothing to do with it. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even so, its verifiable existence makes it notable. Wikipedia isn't limited in size, just as long as the information included isn't crap. Monobi (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. See WP:NOTABILITY. This sort of thing needs reliable third party news coverage, and so far as I can tell it hasn't gotten any. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N only states how things were previously done. There are no rules, outside of these for legal reasons. Monobi (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ←You make a good point, Monobi. I would like to add to my rationale that it is my opinion that the inclusion of this article gives undue weight to the Libertarian platform, and I'm of the persuasion that Wikipedia would be a lot better without as much Libertarian-related content. Just my $0.02. Hope this helps -- Badger Drink (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha. How about less anime-related content :) ? Monobi (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! --Badger Drink (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable existence is the only legitimate inclusion standard, and the subject of the article clearly meets that. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 02:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I verifiably exist. Do I get an article? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you already had one, and someone just vandalized your sig. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kmweber. Soxred93 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per TallNapoleon --Lemmey talk 06:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: While I think the party will never be much more than a novelty, they did make it onto the ballot in 2 states for the 2008 Presidential election and are considered a legitimate political party. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2008 (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.