Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of congresspersons who received campaign money from the NRA


 * 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 no consensus. Some of the Keep rationales are a little close to WP:ITSNOTABLE, but the better crafted ones mean that there is no way this AfD can end in deletion. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

List of congresspersons who received campaign money from the NRA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is my first AFD but I will take my best shot at it. This is clearly a POV fork meant to shame politicians who have received money from the National Rifle Association. The fact that the article's creator got this message in response to the article's creation and said creator does not even try to deny that's what its purpose was seems to say it all. Wikipedia is meant to be written from a neutral POV, and unless there's an article out there listing politicians who received money from a gun-control group like Americans for Responsible Solutions to balance things out, I fail to see the neutrality of this article. Werehilly (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep it is extracted from public records and the topic and list has been covered in RS like CNBC. It's a valid topic and valid list. You are free to start another list if you can find reliable sources for the list that discuss the list topic. Please don't make WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations in an area under Discretionary Sanctions. Legacypac (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are barely any sources used for this article at this moment indicates there will be a lesser amount of sources for a counter-list. So I doubt any list of this kind of nature would be sustainable on its own. Werehilly (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject easily meets WP:LISTN, our primary notability guideline for list articles. On top of that, the information is neutrally presented and of substantial encyclopedic value.- MrX 🖋 21:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject meets WP:LISTN as MrX pointed out. It covers both political parties, Republicans and Democrats -- note that 10 years ago, there would be more politicians from both parties on this list, but for reasons not of my doing, the NRA gravitated to the GOP (but Democrats are included); frankly, I didn't know before I started this list how few Democrats were on it, and I would have made this list regardless of how it broke out in terms of political parties. Frankly, trying to guess about people's motivations in creating any article in Wikipedia is fraught with difficulty, and irrelevant -- let's deal with the list as it is. The nominator's worry that these politicians are being "shamed" is really out of context -- one thinks of shaming in the context of a private person, in which some embarrassing detail is revealed unnecessarily, like exposing a married person's affair when nobody cares. But here we have public officials who are supposed to work in the public's interest, and yes it is highly important for voters to know where our legislators are getting their campaign monies from, particularly when it involves an ongoing topic of importance -- gun violence and gun control. And this topic of NRA contributions to members of Congress is highly notable such as sources here and here and here and here and elsewhere.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But can you explain this message you got, and your response to it? Specifically, did you see the part where the user blatantly says, "We should think about other ways Wikipedia can be used to shame our politicians into better behavior!" Werehilly (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not responsible for what other users write on my talk page. And you, trying to guess at motives here, is really a waste of time, and is irrelevant to this whole discussion. For example, you don't know my real motivations for creating the article, do you? Perhaps I'm an avid NRA supporter who is secretly glad that the NRA is supporting these congresspersons. Or, maybe I'm an avid NRA foe? See, you don't know. You might scan my previous contributions, but who knows, maybe I've changed my views since then. You don't know. But that's the whole idea of Wikipedia: our agendas are irrelevant -- so focus on the list itself. Does it side with Democrats or Republicans? No -- it lists every congressperson from both parties who got $$$. Does it side with pro-gun or anti-gun debate? No. It's neutral. It is just a list.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You should've, at the very least, addressed that last statement in some way to maintain neutrality. People who are extremely gung-ho about gun rights are going to look at that exchange and come to their own conclusions about it. Werehilly (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While other people come her to whitewash gun articles. Legacypac (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable, the inclusion criteria are well-defined, and the information is neutrally presented. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete given that the NRA has been around for years and years, I think the article length would become unmanageable if we included every individual who fits the description. Lepricavark (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since when is 'unmanageable' a criterion for deletion? There are no size limits for articles in Wikipedia that I am familiar with.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's exactly as long as it will ever get (other than more cites) since the page is specific to an election that is over. If a similar topic comes up in 2020 we put up another page Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a little less concerned now that the scope of the article has been clarified and the article has been renamed. Lepricavark (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per OP. Seems This also seems like wp:Advocacy and possibly wp:rgw.  Springee (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Advocating what? The list can be viewed positively by either NRA supporters or NRA detractors. It's neutral. It's just information, and it's up to the reader what it means, good or bad.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty POV of Springee - when will you stop advocating against any transparency around the NRA's activities? The NRA itself grades candadites in every election. https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/ Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So you say it's POV of me. This article is meant to be just a list correct?  If that is all you think the list should be why did you restore this material which ties the list together with an anti-gun political movement? []?  That moves this from a factual list to a WP:COATRACK.  Springee (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, keep the pro-gun and anti-gun stuff out; it's just a list.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: there's plenty of coverage on the topic of "politicians receiving money from the NRA", so the subject meets WP:LISTN. Sample coverage:
 * Lawmakers and the NRA money, ABC News
 * The Congress Members Receiving the Most N.R.A. Funding ... | https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/.../thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.htm... | Oct 4, 2017 - Thoughts and prayers and the N.R.A.: Here are the top career recipients of N.R.A. campaign money.
 * NRA contributions: how much money is spent on lawmakers? | US ... | https://www.theguardian.com/.../florida-school-shooting-focus-shifts-to-nra-gun-lobb... | Feb 15, 2018 - On Wednesday, Bess Kalb, a writer for the late night television show Jimmy Kimmel Live! responded to lawmakers offering prayers by tweeting the amount of contributions they received from the National Rifle Association (NRA).
 * These Florida lawmakers accepted money from the NRA - CNNPolitics | https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics/nra-pvf...florida-politicians/index.html | Feb 21, 2018 - Here's a list of members of Congress from Florida whoreceived contributions from the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund in the 2016 election cycle.
 * NRA Money Helped These Washington Lawmakers In 2016, Data ... | Patch.com-Mar 7, 2018 | The NRA gave Washington politicians more than $73,000 in 2016, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.
 * There's plenty more of where this comes from. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. For the record - I think this is a silly and trivial list (and maybe a fork of a "list of Republicans in 2016"? (even with the 4 Ds there)) whose creation is possibly tinged with advocacy (after all - we do not have a "List of congresspersons who received campaign money from X in 2016" (replace X with your favorite lobbying org)) - but motivations for creation of articles are often tinged every which way (and typically follow editor interest), and this perhaps illustrates the problem with LISTN. However, this does meet LISTN.Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: this list vios WP:NOT: this is a non-encyclopedic cross categorization, and with the name change it is even worse, now a triple cross categorization: Members of Congress, a single organization and a single year.  It also relies on a single source, and WP:LISTN requires multiple sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The list passes LISTN which says One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and there are numerous references discussing NRA contributions to congresspersons as a group such as here and here. About cross-categorization: it is true that WP:NOT (point 6) discourages non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations such as "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" but the idea is to discourage contributors from creating new lists (ie original research) by putting two categories together that are normally not together, such as restaurant type and city. But this list does not do that: nothing new is created since the topic of NRA contributions to congress has an abundance of sources. Further, WP:LISTN says explicitly that There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists, so there is no ruling here.-Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously we disagree on which cross-categorizations are not encyclopedic. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's reliable sources saying NRA=>$$$=>congresspersons. And unencyclopedic is a vague wiki-speak term for you don't like it but can't exactly say why.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually both sources say NRA=>$$$=>congressional candidates in the 2016 election cycle. And many, many people on the list, are not, and never were, "congresspersons".  What I don't like is a low quality, erroneously named list article, that leads me to believe the creator did not know what they were doing.  My interest is only the quality and accuracy of the encyclopedia, as I am sure yours is too. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Other than a personal attack ("did not know what they were doing"), do you have any credible arguments for deletion? The list was taken directly from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, and includes persons who were congresspersons (former & current as well as candidates who weren't chosen) in the 2016 election cycle.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain to me why someone who has never served in Congress should appear on any list of "congresspersons" in this encyclopedia? UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * List includes congresspersons (former & current) and candidates for Congress, in 2016 election year cycle. They all got $$$ directly from the NRA in 2016 -- the common variable. You're free to propose a new name for the list. But what does this have to do with the AfD discussion? Doesn't your comment belong on the talk page instead?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am now a little on the fence because I just realized this overall group is already getting even more media exposure due to the 2018 United States gun violence protests. However, since there are some who share my opinion on deleting this, and since I am still technically of the opinion that this should be deleted, I will keep this discussion and see what else can be brought on the table, before I start considering a withdrawal. Werehilly (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding POV elements to a list that you're proposing to delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * the title might be a little off. Replace "congresspersons" with "congressional candidates" solves that problem. Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And how was that POV? Werehilly (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The sentence added appeared to take a side in the gun debate (ie criticizing congresspersons). Let's leave out the pro-Congress anti-Congress pro-gun anti-gun POV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But that's the only reason why anyone would want to keep this article. There's also multiple WP:RS covering such criticism. If the article's sole purpose is to just be a list, then I don't see what would be so notable about NRA donations as opposed to donations politicians receive from other organizations (and I'm not just talking about pro-gun and anti-gun organizations). Werehilly (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete if there was ever a defacto definition of an attack article this is it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep if it is to be treated as a list not confined to 2016, and Neutral, leaning Weak Delete on a 2016-specific list. Most of the sources I've seen, including most of those linked in this very discussion, concern total funds received from the NRA rather than just a list of 2016. It's the fact of receiving the funds at all that is notable, and which gets a lot of coverage. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep relevant and useful page, whatever the motives are for the creator are irrelevant to this discussion as long as wiki policies are not being violated, and fall under the realm of WP:AGF. It is too bad similar lists about politicians accepting money from other lobbying groups dont yet exist; perhaps they should be created as they too are useful.--Calthinus (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment to closing admin Please note that the nominator has been adding in POV additions to the article while using POV as a reason for deletion. And then re-adding the information again.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Neutral article, satisfies WP:CLT, discussed in CNN, AJC, CNBC, and that's kinda it. Trout for moving the page, now I can't judge whether this is notable or if "just 2016" is notable.  w umbolo   ^^^  16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No objection to moving it to a better title. Legacypac (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Neutrally written and notable. SportingFlyer  talk  21:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - The source for the substance of the data is opensecrets.org (source 11, currently, on the article). The other sources are all window-dressing about violence by people with guns, "top-10 NRA donor recipients," etc.  So, is opensecrets.org the new fashionable WP:RS, and is Wikipedia to replicate all its data?  Seems unreasonable.  Also, WP:UNDUE: why only this page dedicated to 2016?.  WP:WEIGHT reads: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail".  I say the depth of detail points to POV-pushing, raising WP:NPOV issues.  As pointed out on the TP, opensecrets.org offers the same data for 2014, 2012, 2010, etc.  Insofar as these pages do not exist, it appears to be UNDUE to have this one page.  Mind you, insofar as the article is quote-"supported"-unquote by some WP:RS articles, I do think it would be fair for interested editors to build an article such as "NRA political contributions in the early 21st Century", or some such.   It's just the deep data replication from opensecrets.org that is highly questionable, UNDUE, and therefore this article should be deleted.  XavierItzm (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Opensecrets is neutral, nonpartisan, their source the Federal Election Commission, a reliable source. The list is built so that future years could be added -- the year is a column. There is no particular POV being pushed -- both pro-gun and anti-gun people could find this list useful.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete this is inherently an NPOV violation. We wouldn't keep a List of congresspersons who received campaign money from George Soros or List of congresspersons who received campaign money from the Koch brothers for obvious reasons, and we shouldn't keep this either.  It's also borders on a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the list does not advocate a particular POV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The page says The issue of gun control and politics has become a topic of debate following the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in 2018, and it's obviously intended to highlight politicians that are anti-gun control.  Whether it's supposed to support or oppose them (or both), it's still problematic. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It explains why the issue is important; it doesn't take sides.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to be a neutral article. Abequinn14 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has achieved neutrality and the subject has been often covered by media. Lorstaking (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2018 (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.