Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political activities of the Koch family


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Political activities of the Koch family

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Correcting incorrectly-structured nomination by User:Deletefeader, who proposes nomination for deletion as impermissible POVFORK. The user is correct, and the article violates Wikipedia's BLP policy. THF (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you be more explicit as to which parts you think violate WP:NPOV and the WP:BLP policy? It seems to me that the information is all referenced and not particularly pointed.  I did not find any specific claims in the article's talk page either.  Francis Bond (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The entire article violates NPOV: every single source (save two cited once each) is left-wing, and several are partisan sources inappropriate for a BLP (and indeed, were rejected as sources in the existing biography articles). If the Kochs were liberal, rather than conservative, a one-sided article like this would have been speedy-deleted. THF (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're acting as if the article cites all DNCC press releases instead of The New York Times, The New Yorker, and NPR. These are perfectly adequate sources. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Jane Mayer piece from the New Yorker is essentially a DNCC press release; it is wildly slanted, and has been extensively refuted (though the refutations aren't mentioned in the article). The New York Times article is an op-ed by Frank Rich. The NPR piece is a quote from an anonymous Democratic consultant. So I disagree. THF (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * THF, it is interesting that you deem the above sources POV, while yourself --> inserting this National Review --> article at Charles G. Koch by Kimberly Dennis (fmr executive director of the Philanthropy Roundtable) - a group that has received $ 19,200 from the Koch Family Foundation and who praises Charles Koch's Charitable Foundation --> link. Thus, should we presume that this is indicative of what you view as an acceptable and unbiased news source on the matter? Because such clarity would be helpful as we move forward in this discussion.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't you have some more spamming of your political organization website to do, or do you wish to WP:HARASS me some more by following me to multiple articles and AFDs in retaliation for deleting your spamming? Please stop violating WP:BATTLE. THF (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's rich, untrue and WP:NPA - but I don't expect you to start following decorum now. For the record I am not "following" you, I edited the Koch articles as early as September 13, 2010 - they've also been on my watch list since that time. Now, seeing that you did not respond to the substance of my question, I will assume that National Review writers whose organizations receive funds from the Koch brothers - is your idea of a neutral news source on the Koch Brother’s political activities. At least now we are all on the same page, and your 'reasoning' exposed for what it is.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to get a better understanding of the neutrality problems, you need to compare earlier versions to the current incarnation, as the editorial process has already been started on this article . Bonewah (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep (as creator), since, as prior discussion on the talk page indicates, the only arguments for deletion are essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Claims that the article is a fork are worthless without specifying what article it is supposed to be a fork of. I would though countenance a possible merge to an article about the role of people like the Kochs and Richard Mellon Scaife etc in funding and promoting American conservative institutions; see the Significance section of the article. (Such an article should exist anyway, for the broader topic, but I'm not sure if there is one, or what it would be called.) Rd232 talk 14:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: Merge to Koch family (without prejudice to WP:SUMMARY-style spinoff if one day necessary), per Phil Bridger's suggestion. Rd232 talk 00:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly a notable topic, as attested by reliable sources; any synth/NPOV/BLP problems can be fixed through normal editing. Works better as a separate article than as sections in the articles on each of the individuals. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * DeleteAlmost all the information here is a repeat of what is in the numerous other Koch related articles. Id be happy to change my view if someone can show me a significant amount of information which is appropriate to this article, inappropriate for other Koch articles and neutral, reliably sourced and not OR. Thats the real problem, the parts of this article that comply with the basic rules of Wikipedia are duplicates of other articles, the parts that do not comply with the basic rules of wikipedia have no business in any article. Bonewah (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you have a problem with Political activities of Fred Koch, Political activities of Charles Koch and Political activities of David Koch? No? Well just consider this a merger of those articles - a merger which makes a lot of sense because of the overlap and interconnections. If necessary we could even give it the (infinitely clumsier) name Political activities of Fred Koch, Charles Koch and David Koch or perhaps Political activities of Koch Industries and its owners. Alternatively, perhaps you could suggest a merge target for the wider topic of funders of the US conservative movement; perhaps something in the direction of Funding of the conservative movement in the United States. Rd232 talk 18:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those Political activities of X Koch articles would only make sense if the main X Koch article would be too large if the information were included there. This is standard WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:SPINOUT policy.  None of the other Koch articles are unwieldy or overwhelmed by the inclusion of political activities and, as I said, I dont see any information that would be appropriate in this article but not elsewhere. A fairly basic requirement if you want to create a sub-article is to prove that the sub-article has some value, do that please, prove that this article fills some role that cant be adequately filled by a simple sub-section of one or more of the other Koch articles. Bonewah (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, you're really not listening, are you? The topic under consideration is the overlapping political activities of 3 individuals, the corporation they owned, and several foundations they set up. That topic as a whole cannot be housed at any individual biography; at the company; or at the foundation page (because a lot of the activity wasn't through the foundations). Nor can the topic be properly understood by having bits of it spread over a number of other articles, same as the NYSE cannot be understood merely through references to it in NYSE-listed companies - it needs its own article. Rd232 talk 21:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No I really am listening and your just hand waving to avoid the question: what information specifically do you think should be in this article that can not be adequately handled in the other Koch articles? Not vague "political activites" or "information", specifics, because if such a thing exists in that article now, I dont see it. Bonewah (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't really do any better than direct you to the Blind men and an elephant parable. This topic cannot be handled properly by insisting it remain split up into parts; the whole is rather more than the sum of its parts. An encyclopedia is not just a random jumble of facts; they are arranged by topic in order to provide context to the reader, and this is a topic. As I've noted above, it may be that this topic can be adequately handled within an article on a still wider topic (funding of US conservative movements), but that possibility doesn't seem to interest anyone who wants this deleted. Rd232 talk 00:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But what parts are split up? What is it you think should be included?  You keep talking about facts in the abstract, but steadfastly refuse to say specifically you think needs to be included.  As it stands now, this article is nothing more than a cut and paste job of other Koch articles and you cant or wont say how that will change.  How about we userfy this article until you have had a chance to fill in all the information you wont specify here? Bonewah (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I said "3 individuals, the corporation they owned, and several foundations they set up." - those are the parts split up. RedThoreau's new sources give an indication of how the article might begin to develop (it's only days old), and certainly show that it's a valid topic. As I said before, the article on the NYSE is not redundant because articles on NYSE-listed companies mention it in their articles. Rd232 talk 09:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Huge BLP problems, mostly because there are only minimal sources, the vast majority of them partisan sources or op-eds. Merge the little content that is salvageable, well-sourced and complying with NPOV into the articles on the individuals, where it belongs (and making sure that it does overwhelm the existing content). Pantherskin (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED. It's a perfectly valid topic, it's only just been created qua topic, as opposed to bits scattered around in different places. Rd232 talk 18:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A rather unconstructive comment as I am clearly not suggesting to censor content that is reliably sourced and notable. But content that violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:ATTACK needs to be removed respectively deleted. That is not censorship, but enforcement of core policies. Pantherskin (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well since you're not actually specifying what content breaches these policies you allude to or why that means the article needs deleting rather than the disputed content, WP:NOTCENSORED sprang to mind, as a political variant of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Remember that AFD is not a vote, and you need to (a) provide reasons to justify deletion of the article and (b) show that those reasons actually apply in this case. Rd232 talk 21:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would actually be helpful if you would refrain from attempts to derail this Afd by throwing the usual WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTCENSORED around. What is so difficult to understand about "Huge BLP problems, mostly because there are only minimal sources, the vast majority of them partisan sources or op-eds"?? In fact, this article should not only be deleted but the article creator be warned or blocked for some time, given the blatant disregard for our BLP policy and the attempt to abuse Wikipedia as soapboax and vehicle for attack pages. Pantherskin (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful you refrained from waving BLP as a delete argument when it isn't; and whilst some of the sourcing is currently not great, none of the facts are actually disputed. In any case poor current sourcing is not a reason for deletion; lack of notability is. And for example RedThoreau has just listed a bunch more sources on the topic. Rd232 talk 12:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see a lot of acronym listing (and quasi-WP:Wikilawyering), but not much specific rationale of how these various policies are being violated. A possible solution could be to rename the article Political activities of the Koch Brothers or Political activities of the Koch Brothers (David & Charles) as they seem to be the real issue here. There are scores of sources that discuss the political advocacy and financial largess that has been donated by David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch known colloquially as the "Koch Brothers" (although yes they have 2 other brothers Bill & Frederick who are not involved in large scale political advocacy). There of course should be an article on the political work of the two "Koch brothers". As for sources, below are just a few that discuss the "Koch Brothers" as a notable and influential political entity ...
 * - The Brothers Koch: Rich, Political And Playing To Win audio story by NPR
 * - The Billionaire Koch brothers war against Obama cover story by The New Yorker
 * - How Important Are The Koch Brothers? by The New Republic
 * - Koch Brothers Have Given More Than $100 Million to Right-Wing Causes video by Democracy Now!
 * - The Koch brothers invade California by Salon magazine
 * - Billionaire Koch brothers back suspension of California climate law by The LA Times
 * - The Koch Brothers and the Tea Parties by The Washington Independent
 * - Schwarzenegger vs. Big Oil and The Billionaire Koch Brothers by Forbes
 * - The billionaire Koch brothers: Tea Party puppetmasters? by The Week
 * - Koch brothers to host rightwing politicians and business leaders at California resort by The Guardian
 * - Koch Industries (Brothers) and Republicans plan ahead by The New York Times
 * Red thoreau -- (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No need for separate article. Almost all the information here is the same information in the numerous other Koch related articles.
 * Keep I asked for some more detail above, and it appears that the claims for violation of WP:NPOV and problems with WP:BLP are based on the opinion that sources such as the New York Times are unreliable, which is not convincing.  I am also concerned by canvassing and discussions on the talk page by User:MBMadmirer who has a clear conflict of interest. See, for example:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:THF&oldid=410569409 Francis Bond (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also canvassing (and nomination) by single purpose account Special:Contributions/Deletefeader — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffbond (talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Even though some of the sources are reliable, "connecting the dots" (asserting that all the statements are related) may be a WP:SYN violation.  It also had been starting to resemble a WP:COATRACK.  Still, I still believe that some article may be appropriate here, even if none of the current content would be appropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only SYNTH, but also a clear POVfork, since the material which is reasonable for individual articles is already in those articles, and this is a home for material which was barred from the other articles by WP policies and consensus. Jane Mayer's opinion piece is now covered in about ten articles - there is absolutely no need for this article on WP.  Also note that charges of criminal activity can not be sourced to an opinion piece per WP:BLP.   The only proper cource is therefore deletion and salting of this article. Collect (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Listing policies you would like to prove your point is not the same as proving it: eg what on earth is the novel conclusion which violates WP:SYN? And what is this obsession with a single one of the sources used (Mayer)? I've recently added several academic sources, and if people were less keen to delete I'm sure more good sources would turn up. Rd232 talk 03:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NPOV is not a valid reason to delete a event article. Fixing biased event articles can only be done by adding information from the other side, not by deleting information, so both, not neither, viewpoints can be properly represented. The information on article also cannot be put on other articles for the same reason the World War articles cannot be shoved in to the articles about Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, etc. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Koch family. It has been clearly demonstrated that this topic has had significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which are by no means all left-wing sources, even according to the US political spectrum that has its centre well to the right of most of the world. For example Bloomberg ("The Koch family has been linked to conservative politics since the days of founder Fred Koch, who helped found the John Birch Society, which campaigned against communism in U.S. politics during the 1950s") and Forbes can hardly be said to be on the left, with Michael Bloomberg and Steve Forbes both being Republicans. Having said all that, I don't see why this needs to be a separate article from the one that we already have on the family. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea! I think it didn't occur to me before partly because the current Koch family article is basically a glorified disambiguation page, and it should clearly be more than that. Koch Family Foundations might well be best merged into that too. Rd232 talk 00:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge: I have not seen a reason for deletion; that's not the solution to editing problems. It's valuable, notable information. guanxi (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the information, including that you just added, is from sources of questionable reliability. Much of it was removed from the individual articles for failing verifiability, not just for inappropriateness.  The accurate part of what you wrote is not a reason to keep.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I should add that I don't think the article should be deleted, but that much of the material presently in the article is clear WP:BLP violations, and should be removed quickly. I hesitate to do so while the AfD is in progress, but it is suggested by policy.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete, nothing but one gigantic POV fork. ZippoHurlihee (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously a fork article. Does not make sense to merge, since this article is made up primarily of content in the Koch Brothers articles. Truthsort (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2011 (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.