Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factions in the Republican Party (United States)


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn; nominator was unaware of recent page vandalism. Aaron 20:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Factions in the Republican Party (United States)
Generally, if the article's opening paragraphs contain a line like "Defining the views of any 'faction' of any American political party is difficult," you've got a WP:V and WP:OR. This article has both in spades; basically, the "factions" have been defined according to the POVs of whichever editors have ever passed through and added their two cents; sources are nonexistent, save for an eight-year-old Washington Post article. Not that the information in it is necessarily wrong, in my opinion, but that's the problem: It's all just opinion. Suggest delete or perhaps merge into Republican Party (United States) where at least there will be a far larger consensus reached as to which "factions" are legitimate (the current article doesn't have very many wikilinks). Aaron 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is true that discussion of highly political issues brings out the POV in people. The editors of this very important, timely article have tried to overcome that problem with considerable success. The article of course is based on the current media--Time, Newsweek, NY Times, New Rebublic, Nation, National review etc have useful information every week. (and numerous books---of which Barone is essential). The critcs seem to have no specific complaints--which seems rather odd. The article of course is one of several spinoffs from The Republican Party, which is already very long. Rjensen 20:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * References--the section on references had been vandalized. Here it is, noting the recent mainstream publications that cover the topic, as well as sources from left and right to provide balance. Rjensen 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael Barone and Richard E. Cohen. The Almanac of American Politics, 2006 (2005) 1900 pages of minute, nonpartisan detail on every state and district and member of Congress.
 * Thomas Byrne Edsall. Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive For Permanent Power (2006) sophisticated analysis by liberal
 * Michael Crane. The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Book on Politics (2004), nonpartisan
 * Thomas Frank. What's the Matter with Kansas (2005) insightful attack by a liberal.
 * Bruce Frohnen, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffery O. Nelson, eds. American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia (2006) 980 pages of articles by 200 conservative scholars
 * Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten. One Party Country: The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century (2006), hostile
 * Adrian Wooldridge and John Micklethwait. The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America (2004), sophisticated nonpartisan analysis
 * "A Guide to the Republican Herd" New York Times'' Oct 5, 2006 interactive graphic
 * Belief Spectrum Brings Party Splits Washington Post October 4, 1998
 * I was unaware the article had been vandalized; I'll withdraw the nomination. But the article seriously needs a good cleanup, preferably with each section individually referenced to some point; and it also needs better representation on main Republican Party (United States) page, where it currently gets only a passing mention. --Aaron 20:33, 13 October 2006 (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.