Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party politicians


 * 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   keep. Article needs additional work and sources, however the main consensus was to keep. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter  (chatter)  19:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Tea Party politicians

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unfeasibly broad list with unclear inclusion criteria. Just about every politician in the modern-day Republican Party, including its 4000 state legislators, would identify with the Tea Party and/or has been identified as belonging to it. I don't think it's possible to narrow down the inclusion criteria (e.g. by cutting out state legislative-level politicians or non-officeholders, or by only including those who've publicly identified with the Tea Party) without falling foul of WP:OR. – hysteria18 (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with you. The article is a mishmash as it stands, with most of the article claims about Tea Party status totally unsourced.  I have just deleted a bunch of the names that had no sources, and had been fact-tagged for weeks.  Many more to go.  Others could help, which would eliminate the problem of the "all 4000 republicans" you mention.  Let's clear out the unsourced claims, and the article might then have only 8 or so names in it (there are currently only eight sources, and no single source seems to identify a broad list of TP politicians).  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not so fast  While almost all Republicans would like to brand themselves as 'Tea Party politicians' there is a distinction between those who make the claim and those who are recognized by legitimate Tea Party adherents. Anna Little was a small town mayor with fringe ideas who defeated a millionaire newspaper publisher, whose husband is a Wall Street tycoon. Christine O'Donnell defeated nine-term U.S. Representative and former governor Michael Castle in Delaware's September 2010 Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. These two examples show that there are anti-establishment candidates whose views are not consistent with the mainstream Republican Party. Mitt Romney is going tohave a hard time gaining support from the Tea Party movement, once his record is subjected to broader scrutiny. Tea Party members want religious intervention in political and governmental affairs. Unlike libertarian Republicans, who are virtually anarchists that desire an end to government, Tea Party people want government services such as Medicare and Social Security but they fear these programs are threatened by financial instability. Most of all, the Tea Party is comprised of angry Americans who want accountability for the Wall Street bailouts that followed the mortgage crisis. While the group has been hijacked by GOP manipulators, a true distinction lies in what real adherents want and what their political masters desire. Ultimately, this conflict has potential for eruption. Arguing that the list is unfeasibly broad is like saying one cannot distinguish between Democrats who are liberal and those who are moderate. It makes more sense to develop clear inclusion criteria than to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Sure, it needs work. I say improve it, but keep it. Njdemocrat (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a useful resource for people researching the Tea Party. Provide a source that establishes public recognition of each politician's Tea Party status. Then the list will be less debatable and more useful for researchers. The scope should be explicitly limited: elected Tea Party politicians, state-level Tea Party politicians, Tea Party politicians who have at least won a primary, Tea Party politicians running for office in 2012. Maybe divide the page into several, more narrowly delimited lists. I'm not sure which is best, but the current scope is certainly too broad. This can be fixed if the page editors are willing. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 10:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 10:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 10:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The only valid criteria I can think of is to restrict it to people who self-identify as Tea Party members/supporters (although people may change their minds, which will give problems). There's a lot of non-notable people there; WP:L says lists should be lists of links to articles, not just lists of people who wouldn't merit WP articles on their own. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - the concerns would be better suited for the article's talk page. Without actually trying to make the inclusion criteria clear, how can it be an "unfeasibly broad list with unclear inclusion criteria"?  These concerns are justification for clarification and consensus on inclusion criteria, not deletion.  The article satisfies WP:NLIST. - SudoGhost 17:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read the third sentence of the nomination? – hysteria18 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. You not thinking its possible does not mean it is not possible, especially as I see no evidence of any discussion to determine if this was the case or not. - SudoGhost 19:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've imagined a stage in the deletion process which doesn't exist. If an editor feels an article should be deleted, he or she isn't required to engage in discussion before nominating/prodding/CSDing the article. This page is the discussion to determine whether it's possible to narrow down the inclusion criteria, and you've yet to say anything to suggest that it is. – hysteria18 (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that there most certainly is a stage in the deletion process that describes exactly what I've said, you are correct that you are not required to engage in discussion beforehand. However, your concerns can also be disagreed with for these same reasons, because your deletion rationale is an unexplored hypothetical.  When your deletion rationale is "The inclusion criteria is unclear, but I've made no attempt to clarify them" and "I don't think it's possible to narrow the list but I haven't tried to do so and haven't discussed it with anyone", then that in itself is a reason to disagree with deleting the article.  Is it possible to narrow down the inclusion criteria?  I looked at the article for five seconds and saw how easily it could be done.  "Self-identifies" is a column; remove any individuals that have not verifiably self-identified as such, and you've automatically cut the list in half, in no way violating WP:OR. - SudoGhost 23:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To remove politicians who haven't self-identified as "Tea Party politicians" (which is ambiguous in itself and probably more restrictive than it seems) is to apply an original definition of what a "Tea Party politician" is, based on editors' judgements rather than reliable sources, which is OR. (I'm not going to continue this subthread past this point; I appreciate your input though and hope I've clarified my position to an extent.) – hysteria18 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source does not show that the individual identifies himself as part of or running under the Tea Party, then remove them, no WP:OR or editor judgement is required, only adherence to reliable sources, which is as far from WP:OR one can be. - SudoGhost 23:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete -- per nom. Without sources for the claims that assert living politicians are members of this somewhat amorphous movement, and no criteria for inclusion specified, I would say this largely WP:OR article ought to be deleted.  N2e (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of these issues can be solved by adhering to WP:RS and clarifying the inclusion criteria, neither of these are cause for deletion of the article. - SudoGhost 20:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: nominator's rationale of WP:OR is unfounded. The list passes WP:NLIST. All we need to do is define inclusion criteria--easily done on talk. – Lionel (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, with a caveat: assuming that each and every entry could be sourceable. For example, the New York Times said that "Jane Doe claimed the mantle of the Tea Party in a speech on Saturday at the Centre County Fair yesterday ...." or WCBS-TV reported that "The Tea Party of Columbia state endorsed Bob Roe at their May 12th meeting in Capitol City, where...." Bearian (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2012 (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.