Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New American Tea 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 and redirect to Tea Party protests. Contributors are unconvinced that this is a sufficiently distinct topic from Tea Party protests or that the organization even exists and is notable; if the best source for this is a Weekly World News article, we have some WP:V problems.  Sandstein  05:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

New American Tea Party

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

This article is a clear content fork of the larger Tea Party protests article and covers the exact same subject. There is no actual political party called "New American Tea Party", rather this is a euphemistic way of describing the organizers of the protests (as is covered in the other article). As a content fork, this article is veering down a more POV path than consensus would allow on the larger article. This article should be deleted and redirected (or possibly merged and redirected if any useful and unique information about the subject are contained here). Loonymonkey (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I red this article as intended to be a POV fork for views that cannot gain consensus on the main Tea Party page.  Furthermore, this article serves no added purpose beyond re-presenting material that is already covered in the main Tea Party article.  TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 02:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Most of what is there is covered in the article, I suggest a merge and salvage as much as we can to see what can be added if anything. Soxwon (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not support this claim. There are very clear references to the "New American Tea Party," which is detailed in the article. Including sources to the organizations who support the New American Tea Party, and have donated $50 million to the organization. Due to the the New American Tea Party having been organized as a result of the tea parties, the article briefly describes why the organization was created and the cause it is supporting in the tea parties. The two editors (above) noticed the article today and quickly started deleting facts and other relevant information from the article (including making off-the-wall claims that foxnews.com is a unreliable source). Based on the complaints by the two editors, I want to ask if they have read the sourced articles that are the New American Tea Party? For reference, here is the About page to the New American Tea Party. After reading through the article, it clearly describes what the New American Tea Party represents, and it clearly describes who is involved in that particular organization. The organization is taking advantage of the tea parties by helping organize and promote future events; however, the article about the New American Tea Party is written in a WP:NPOV so as to keep within the policies of Wikipedia, and it is not the same exact thing as the Tax Day Tea Party or Tea Party protests. Since these qualities are met, and since the article is not the Tax Day Tea Party, I see no reason why New American Tea Party is nominated for deletion. It doesn't make any sense. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NB for those stumbling on this page. We have claimed that an organizer of the tea party protests who appeared on Fox News is not a reliable source, a very reasonable approach - and in no way shape or form claiming that foxnews.com is unreliable. The sourced material that was deleted can be seen here, and was deleted because it consisted of original research and unreliable user-driven sites.  TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pare down and redirect to Tea Party protests, where it belongs. This term is not well-known enough to be the title of an article.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentCould someone quite briefly, in one or two sentences, explain the POV fork? Or is this an organization as opposed to a series of events?  Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, there is a large article about the Tea Party protests. As is mentioned in that article, some pundits, supporters and others have referred to this rather grandiosely as a "New American Tea Party" although it isn't actually a political party or even an actual organization.  It's just a catch-all term for people and organizations involved in the protests.   J. Peter Freire of The American Spectator started a blog by the same name as a kind of clearing house of information about the protests, but the article in discussion here is not about that blog, it is about the protests.  As such, it is a fork (not  a daughter) of a larger article that has had much more work put into it.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked at them, but what is the difference in point of view? Is the NATP article asserting that there is an organization/nonpartisan party vs. the TPP article that doesn't assert that an organization exists?  To be honest I didn't read each line of each article. Drawn Some (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When I have time I can find answers and sources to the information you ask for. Regarding your first question, "but what is the differences in point of view?" I found a reference that mentioned New American Tea Party. The article states, "the best organizational resources are Tax Day Tea Party (nationwide April 15 events), Twitter, PJTV’s list of upcoming protests, Re-TeaParty (send teabags to Washington and find July 4 events), and TCOT Report. And one more good one: New American Tea Party." There could be more too. These organizations are all unique to each other, in that they are covering different regions and/or receive local funding only and/or are supported by different groups and/or etc.. Thus, the Tax Day Tea Party is different than PJTV or New American Tea Party. If we merge New American Tea Party with Tea Party protests, then should we also merge PJTV and others with it, too? Tycoon24 (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to figure out is if it is a POV fork on the same subject or whether it is two different subjects that need separate articles. I'm not deliberately trying to be dense but it is a little complicated which is why I guess it ended up here. Drawn Some (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not an article about a separate subject, it is an article about the same subject by another name. A quick read through the talk page indicates that the primary reason some editors are interested in preserving it is to discuss the subject from a different point of view than the main article.  See here for example.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the main article.,I do not see any unique content. It;s a name some of the protestors used. A redirect will deal with it adequately. DGG (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect per discussion. If there are any articles that should be spawned from the primary one let them first develop within their own section in the primary article until it is clear that a separate article is necessary. Drawn Some (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, here's what I've found and why I believe the article is different: The article needs more clarification and more relevant information added into it. It needs more information about the actual organization called New American Tea Party. It's a new article. It's in the process of being created and turned into a more clear encyclopedic article discussing the organization that is New American Tea Party. I will make more changes to the page today, adding another section that better defines who this organization is. If after doing more research and adding more relevant information into the article we find it is still the same thing as the Tea Party protests - then I can see the argument for merging the articles a true resolution. But if it turns out the New American Tea Party is in fact a separate organization similar to PJTV or the others I mentioned, then it would be a grand mistake to merge an article about a organization into another article discussing the Tea Party protest events. I understand why the article (right now) looks very similar to the Tea Party protests. In my editing and in the first draft and for the first stages of the article development, I can see how what I originally thought was creating a good starting point can be construed as developing the same article that is Tea Party protests but within another article. From my point of view, I was simply creating a starting point to help with the understanding and thinking as to what this organization was created for - which is to assist in the promotion of tea parties and become another leader in future movements. This is different than the Tea Party protests because it is not a tea party protest, it is the hand that guides the citizens who are the tea party protesters. While not exactly the same as PJTV, it is the same in that it's a separate organization to the tea parties. However, I'll repeat what I mentioned above, I can see how the first stages of the article can confuse other editors into thinking it is the same as the Tea Party protests, and I will do my absolute best to cleanup the article and provide more specific information to the organization itself. All I ask for is a little time. If you can give me time, I will help to create a better article. Can I please have the necessary time to do this without continued threats of deleting the article? I'm not against merging if the article ultimately turns out to be the same, but I am against a premature consensus that considers the article something that it is not. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication of there being any actual party, and a clear content fork. Should a true party ever get developed and get media attention and etc. then we can have a separate article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update I have been doing research and writing the necessary but not-yet-updated changes; I'm going to overhaul the article with these changes in the next couple of hours. I'll post a response here when finished so we can get another look at the differences between the two articles in question. If after these changes it seems most editors feel the article is still the same as the Tea Party protests in general, then we can go from there. Thank you for all of your patience while I update the page to be a more accurate representation of the New American Tea Party organization. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Second Update I just edited into the article its first overhaul. It took awhile! I had a lot of the changes developed a day ago, but my computer froze after hours of research - I lost everything and had to start over. Doh! So, after doing my best to make another effort at it, I've finally finished! Finished a still rough-draft that is. But the article is much clearer now than what it used to be. Tycoon24 (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After going through the article again, and allowing TharsHammar to make some modifications, I find it hard to believe the New American Tea Party is the same as the events that followed it: The Tax Day Tea Party. If anything, the article titled "Tea Party protests" should probably be reverted back to its original title, "Tax Day Tea Party." And the article "Timeline of Tea Party protests" could either 1) stay the same, or 2) get changed to "Tea Party protests" to stray from confusion of discussing the events as a whole, from start to its current situation, and confusing the overall events with the New American Tea Party protests or the rallies that followed -- the Tad Day Tea Party. Tycoon24 (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - There doesn't appear to be an entity with the name "New American Tea Party"; seems like an euphemism that can be covered in the TPP article. Nu&beta;i&alpha;&tau;&epsilon;ch    Talk  09:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you read it wrong and the New American Tea party are the tea parties that occurred on February 27, 2009? You can't mesh two separate events that occurred on separately organized dates by different organizations into a generic article called "tea parties." The generic titled article, "Tea Party protests" doesn't even cover the February 27 New American Tea Party protests, because those were events that occurred before the Tax Day Tea Party. More than half the Tax Day Tea party article is a side-story developed by MSNBC and CNN -- and nothing about the "Tax Day Tea Parties." The "New American Tea Parties" did not happen on "Tax Day," these protests were not the Tax Day Tea Party protests. They happened on February 27. What else is missing in the article to explain this? I tried to cover it all in the most neutral way possible. Tycoon24 (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Tea Party Protests article is not just about the protests that occurred on 4/15, they cover several earlier ones as well. It is about all the related protests on this subject.  If you feel there is a notable protest that needs more coverage there, you should open a discussion on the talk page of that article.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE The article under discussion has been moved to American Tea Party. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 20:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a content fork from Tea Party protests, consisting almost exclusively of original research and an "opinion paper" related to http://newamericanteaparty.com, a one-day event of inadequate note to merit a WP article. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update - I moved the article to "American Tea Party" because New American Tea Party had little reliable reference-support to justify the name of the article. The article is not a content fork because the Tax Day Tea Party article does not discuss the events prior to Tax Day that led up to the April 15 tea parties. It is an article discussing one event that occurred on a single day. The American Tea Party is a reference to the February 27 rallies. It's not that difficult to distinguish the differences between the two articles. However, unless you've done the research, I can see how some confusion may still exist. But I urge those who feel the article should be deleted to understand the differences of the two articles before suggesting they are the same. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true. The Tea Party Protests article does  cover the events prior to April 15 and earlier protests.  The subject seems to be adequately covered there, but open a discussion if you feel something notable is being left out.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The New American Tea Party is a coalition of organizations. It's not the same thing as the protests. The NATP is responsible for many of them, however. This is not a fork. I created this page without knowledge that the page on the protests even existed. I'm familiar with deletion policies, and I knew that this deserved an article. It's a notable umbrella organization. No one ever claimed that it was a political party. There are also many reliable sources. The article was in much better shape when it was created (in my opinion), but it got to this unorganized state just recently. Now, it has too much information that is in the other article. It wasn't like that at first if you browse the history. There is an organization & there are protests. Yes, they are related, but the organization doesn't just have to do with the protests & the protests don't just have to do with the organization. This notable subject deserves a WP article.  hmwith  τ   21:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that indicates this is an actual umbrella organization providing coordination for the groups involved in the protest rather than simply a website lauding these groups and the protests?  --208.10.62.253 (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did. I think that covered it. I didn't know really anything about it. I had heard of it everywhere, so I searched reliable sources and created an article (since it oddly didn't have one yet). I know that in one of the sources, it said that it was (quote) an "umbrella organization". I actually had to look up the term, as I had never heard it before.   hmwith  τ   21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That one source was the weekly world news article, . TharsHammar Bits andPieces 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment: It has become quite a POV fork. However, that can be combated. It was not originally that way. Much useful information was also deleted from the article recently, and a lot of other information (that doesn't belong) was added. It needs work (and lots of reverting), but there is no reason for deletion under policy.  hmwith  τ   21:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I also restored the article to its last NPOV/non-forkish state. Please reevaluate as needed.  hmwith  τ   21:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey - your edits really destroyed the article. As is, after your wipe-out to the article content, it's likely doomed to get deleted. Prior to your massive deletes, the article was not falling under a POV fork. I tried making the article as neutral, clear, and representational to the February 27 tea party protests as possible. Why? Because there were not enough reliable sources to create an article called "New American Tea Party." Unless you can find reliable sources that cover the political umbrella organization called New American Tea Party, it's likely to get deleted. The events on February 27 are in accordance with sub-article guidelines, and allow the article to be represented and remain as such (not yet approved). But it'll be a difficult steeper up-hill battle for you to argue for keeping The New American Tea Party. I've done all I can. The rest is in your hands, so it's up to you if you decide to keep your last three edits! ...then again, I am new to this, so what do I know? There's always a chance I am wrong and the article you just reverted back to is allowable. However, you did just revert it back to where the article was when it first got considered for deletion. So I'm not very optimistic your recent changes helped. But I could be wrong... Tycoon24 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the name American Tea Party again. I meant to restore the text, not undue the move. I forgot that would happen. It looked sloppy, but I'm sure I deleted some good material too. As is, it's totally neutral. Short, but neutral. It also does meet our notability and RS guidelines. I don't know anyone's biases (I don't really agree or disagree with the organization), but feel free to re-add any good, NPOV information. Actually, please do.  hmwith  τ   21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - More on the argument claiming the American Tea Party is a content fork: From Tea Party protests discussion "It seems like the current Tax Day Tea Party article is violating Wikipedia policy by attempting to hide the events that occurred on February 27. The American Tea Party, or "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party," happened on February 27, and those events led to the Tax Day Tea Party. Why are people trying to hide this from the public? Nowhere in [the Tea Party protests] article is it mentioned that the American Tea Party (or "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party") occurred on February 27. The Tea Party protests article is deceiving because its name is "Tea Party protests," but in reality the article is [covering] the Tax Day Tea Party protests. The Tea Party protests article covers one event, which occurred on a single day (Tax Day). More on that, the American Tea Party article falls under Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles and/or Related articles. Because "summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to WP:NPOV," which it does."
 * Thus, since the American Tea Party article is not a content fork, and because it is a sub-article covering in greater detail an event that occurred prior to the Tax Day Tea Party, it seems this article should be allowed to stay without deletion. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be making the case against your own position, here. You're essentially arguing that this article should be kept because it's a place to put content that you haven't been able to put into the larger article (information about the 2/27 protest).  That's the very definition of content forking.  If you have a problem with that article, you should discuss it there and if consensus goes against you then so be it. But there's no sense in trying to write another article on the same subject that is more to your liking.   As for this being a sub article, no, it's not in any way.  It was not budded off from that article (which isn't nearly large enough to require daughter articles anyway).  It exists parallel to that article. Also, you seem to be changing your argument from your earlier posts (to now arguing that it is a daughter article as opposed to the earlier claims that there was an actual organization by this name. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Name Change - I just changed the name back to New American Tea Party due to the recent changes by hmwith. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Nothing in the article indicates that this is an actual organization (rather than just a term used for protesters and protests). Where is the organization based? Who is in charge?  How many members?  None of that information is provided in any of the refs (most of which are simply about the protests).  A quick google search indicates that none of these answers are available because the organization does not exist.  It is a nickname and it is the name of a website, nothing more. This is clearly a content fork.  --208.10.62.253 (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't an actual party. It's an umbrella organization. See the intro sentence of the article.  hmwith  τ   21:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note another one of these articles has popped up Nationwide Chicago Tea Party and I have nominated for deletion Articles for deletion/Nationwide Chicago Tea Party. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This conveys no information that wouldn't fit in the Tea Party protests article.  The fork here makes no sense to me. AyaK (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge these guy were a big deal and have more planned for the future. At the very least merge it with the tea party protests page. - Schrandit (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fits the definition of a content fork. 69.251.135.219 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:POVFORK claims that "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject." On which article does it have the same information? Tea party protests is about protests. American Tea Party is about an organization. The information in this article would be totally irrelevant in the protests article. They're not interchangable topics.  hmwith  τ   21:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Beyond an unreliable summary article, and a weekly world news article  is there any actual proof that this is an organization? I'm sorry but I think you have been duped by the weekly world news.  Yes, there is a website called new american tea party, but no actual organization exists.  To quote the website "We’re a coalition of citizens and organizations concerned about the recent trend of fiscal recklessness in government. This website is dedicated to the Washington, D.C. effort of February 27th, 2009 specifically sponsored by the ...(list of actual organizations)" . TharsHammar Bits andPieces 21:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here with TharsHammar. After making my best attempt at researching the organization called New American Tea Party, looking for any solid information on its existence, it was extremely difficult to say the least. I ended up finding more information on events prior to Tax Day than relevant info on such an organization - if it truly does exist. At this point, my intuition tells me the article shouldn't be deleted quite yet, simply because there's possibly still a lot of not-yet-found references that could provide more info on the organization called New American Tea Party. But by the mere fact that "weekly world news" could have fooled myself and/or others into, at first, thinking this could actually be a real organization, it's looking more and more like a Web site called New American Tea Party rather than an actual organization. The website does indeed discuss some of the organizations that hopped on the bandwagon to support the movement; however, simply having a collection of different supporting organizations to the both the February 27 and April 15 events doesn't necessarily prove the organization exists as a single entity or group. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say Fox News is a legit source, but I tagged it for a speedy.  hmwith  τ   04:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I watched the Fox News clips, and they only mention that it is a website, they don't talk about any formal organization, and they use the "weasel quotes" when New American Tea Party is on the screen. The umbrella organization wording comes straight from the weekly world news article. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 14:28, 14 May 2009 (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.