Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedition Caucus


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sedition Caucus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an attack page. Although it may not fall under the strict criteria of the WP:CSD reason, it is a page that attacks its subject(s). There is no organization known as the "Sedition Caucus". The people listed as members of this "caucus" are not actually organized as a caucus or anything similar.

From the article itself:

"the Sedition Caucus, also the ... is a pejorative term for ... members of ... Congress"

"The term, referring to a Congressional caucus, does not refer to an actual organized group"

TOA The owner of all ☑️ 02:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 02:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 02:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 02:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 02:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Poor WP:ATTACKPAGE and WP:POVFORK. KidAd  •  SPEAK  03:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not self-evidently either of those things. !Votes without reasoning beyond links generally don't affect the outcome of a discussion. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as creator per WP:NEO ("it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society") and WP:WORDISSUBJECT ("a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped or seen"). The article itself is on the term "Sedition Caucus", which has become widely used in the political world. The article also discusses the actions of the group of lawmakers dubbed the "Sedition Caucus", providing the necessary background for the term and spinning off tangential yet related content from the now-bloated article 2021 United States Capitol attack. Yes, the term itself is non-neutral, but it is unmistakably the WP:COMMONNAME (this is entirely acceptable, see WP:NPOVTITLE). Similar pages include axis of evil, Bernie Bro, death panel, outposts of tyranny, and many other articles included in Category:American political neologisms. Nowhere in the article does it assert that the Sedition Caucus is a legitimate group; it in fact says the literal opposite, as the deletion nominator helpfully pointed out above. This does not make it an attack page; rather, the page plainly documents a term and its historical context – that context being the Capitol attack and several Republican lawmakers voting against certifying Biden's victory. If a person finds that behavior objectionable, well, to tell you the truth, I can't blame you, but those are simply the plain facts of the situation. To pretend otherwise would be irresponsible. The riot and the vote happened, the term came to be, and as an encyclopedia we should have a page on it. The attack was an event which very quickly gained notability, and IMO the term "Sedition Caucus" passes WP:10YT. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not an attack page, as you have already been told. It neither exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject and it is not unsourced or poorly sourced. Objections to the title of the article belong at WP:RM, not here. Objections to two specific sentences belong at the talk page, not here. The reasoning given here would suggest that Axis of evil, Trump derangement syndrome, Bernie Bro, and Karen (pejorative) would also need to be deleted. Sometimes, neutral factual documentation doesn't look very flattering, but that doesn't mean we should delete 2017 Cleveland Browns season, and it doesn't mean we should delete this. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It definitely exists "primarily to disparage its subject". The subject of Congress members that voted against certification is already sufficiently covered at 2021 United States Electoral College vote count. To have this article in addition to that one, is an attempt to disparage to a further extent than the factual information already covered in the neutral-titled article. 03:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️


 * Keep. It's a wiki-notable bloc of American politicians. Is it an unflattering name? Clearly, but there's plenty of pages on political factions whose names are less than flattering. The Copperheads were named for a venomous snake. There are Wikipedia articles on any number of pejoratives, including outright slurs, which have become notable by their usage and impact. "Sedition Caucus" has been used often enough to meet notability as I understand it. If there's problems with the POV, consider editing the page; there might be something to be said for criticism of the term, the members of the "Caucus" reacting to their label, and so forth (although also avoid undue weight). The page itself should remain. RexSueciae (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As argued above, we do indeed have articles on pejorative terms, when we can write about them. (In addition to the examples already listed, Tankie comes to mind.) The sourcing is adequate to establish wiki-notability; I wouldn't rule out a careful merge to one of the other articles in our voluminous coverage of the January 6th coup attempt, but reading over the pertinent material, having these details in a separate page seems more convenient. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject of the article is a thing that has a really non-neutral but probably common name (the proper WP:COMMONNAME doesn't have to be neutral). The subject is not a word per WP:WORDISSUBJECT (it is very dissimilar from something like Gay agenda), despite the article being styled that way (I find that kind of treatment of the subject to be okay regardless). This thing being the political phenomenon of there being this cluster of lawmakers taking an extreme and intransigent position, that breaks from political traditions. The phenomenon is notable and I see it being discussed as such, when it's trajectory is tracked even months later. Clearly the media who are continuously writing about this cluster are not talking about a word, but about something going on in the political realm, a thing, even when they write "so-called 'Sedition Caucus'". — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Also per the guideline WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which allows smaller articles to be spun out of big articles. 2021 storming of the US Capitol is 450kb, so there is not really enough room to move all of this content to that article. And this content should be covered somewhere. A key feature of a WP:G10 or a WP:ATTACKPAGE is that it is negative in tone and unsourced. The sourcing on this article is excellent. BLP and ATTACKPAGE policies are not in place to censor negative material on living persons that is well sourced. If books and newspapers speak negatively of public figures, that is encyclopedic and does not run afoul of our policies. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - easily passes WP:GNG. Just because a page is mostly or entirely negative, or uses a derogatory term as it's title, doesn't mean it's an WP:ATTACKPAGE. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Clean it up thoroughly to make it compatible with WP:NPOV. The page doesn't have to be an attack page, but it currently is one to some extent. It's OK to have articles about notable derogatory terms like Sedition Caucus, Social justice warrior, Tankie, TERF etc., but of course we must not use these terms in WP:WIKIVOICE. The current Sedition Caucus article has two major problems:1. Its text uses the derogatory term Sedition Caucus several times to refer to a group of people.2. Some other articles contain piped links to Sedition Caucus hidden under innocuous terms, e.g. "group of legislators" in 2021 United States Electoral College vote count, "lawmakers who had objected to certifying Electoral College results" in Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. The section "Related groups and persons" of Template:2021 United States Capitol attack contains a link to Sedition Caucus. To fix these issues, we'll have to 1. Make sure that we have two pages that can serve as link targets: one about the group of people, the other about the disparaging term. 2. Clean up the page about the disparaging term and make sure that it doesn't use the term in Wikivoice. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep seems an adequately sourced WP:NEO. May be worthwhile to revisit if an article makes sense at this location after some time has passed or if it would be better covered elsewhere, but the BLP/ATTACK concerns appear quite overblown. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, article accurately identifies this as a perjorative term, I do not see any BLP problems at all. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources seem in order and while i can understand some may misinterpret this article as an "attack", the article begins with identifying the term as perjorative. While I assume good faith I also believe this may just be a case of WP:JDL. Oh, BTW google search today returned about 579,000 hits, either way this article will have to be monitored since it will most likely be prone to vandalism ETC... DN (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the nominator seems to have a political bias evidenced by the articles that they are choosing to nominate for deletion. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2021 (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.