Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teal independents


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Teal independents

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

"Teal independents" is a fairly vague and undefined term, and appears to be mainly used to refer to candidates that have been endorsed by the Climate 200 group. I don't think it's a good idea to attempt to group in these candidates together simply because they're not affiliated with a political party, and given the main through-line appears to be that they're endorsed by Climate 200, I think this article would be better off as a redirect to that one. LivelyRatification (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete There are major issues with the article, such as the conflating of Climate 200, the independents and the community groups that supported them. Each of the successful candidates will have a page, as does the 'Voices' movements that backed their candidacy. This is not a political party, as such I think this article should be incorporated into the Voices page.Playlet (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There are issues with the article, but they can be worked through. This is extremely notable judging by the number of page views and the amount of media coverage this term is receiving. There are many sources talking about "teal independents", even if the candidates don't use the term themselves. That they receive funding from climate 200 is just one of many things linking these people together. Steelkamp (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per Steelkamp Silent Billy (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep There are resolvable issues with the article. As long as there is clarity that this is a group of independents who are not a party, it should be fine. What makes the "Teal Independents" notable enough to be a page is that they are a recognised and distinctly characterisable political phenomenon in Australia. An example; we have a page for "Liberalism", which contains mentions of different figures in that movement; yet we all know that those figures are not from the same party and do not hold the same views. Likewise, we should keep the page about the Teals, while recognising that they are distinct and have some differences and are not in the same political party. StrongPencil (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I vote keep, the media have made it an established term. If you want to try to change the term, ok fine, but these candidates made history in the 2022 election & as such I think it's appropriate wiki covers it & "teal independents" seems like the most appropriate term suggested to date & the one people will search to find the info in this page. I'm commenting because I was shocked to see talk of deletion of an important historical event! That reads to me as corrupt censorship of wiki by those who like the status quo of 2 party domination (probably not confined just to Australia but those scared it will spread to their country too if people are armed with knowledge of this event) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.51.171 (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there's value in keeping the content. However, if it overlaps with the Climate 200 page, then it might be worth redirecting to that page?-CackleGrackle (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it would be worth merging information about the characteristics of teal independents into the Climate 200 article, such as some of their shared characteristics and reasons attributed for their success. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, because they are still a seperate entity and do not take directions from Climate 200. However more sourcing for that is necessary. This is a tough article to write considering the editorial standards required; that does not mean the article should not exist. StrongPencil (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - multiple reliable sources discuss this grouping of candidates and politicians, thus meeting the WP:GNG. While they have sprung from Climate 200 and Voices groups, I believe they meet WP:PAGEDECIDE criteria for having an article discussing them as the "nascent political movement" (Graeme Orr's words) that they are.  --159.196.100.171 (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable topic, sources in their thousands. That said, we should absolutely resist the attempts by a couple of users to try to spin the Teal independent movement like it's a political party, or that it makes their elected MPs not actually independent. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is my main concern -- I worry that trying to define such a vague term or movement which associated MPs don't really identify with might result in readers percieving some sort of connection between the independents where there is none. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, the identification of this group as "Teal independents" has clearly been discussed at great length by the media, potential POV-pushing is not a reason to delete the article, but instead a reason to clean it up. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with the consensus here, the term is widely used in the media (WP:GNG) for this group of candidates. It may well be a focus of some edit wars as the parliament proceeds, but that's not a reason to delete the page. Newystats (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think makes a good point about the similarities between the Teal Independent movement and the Voices for movements in other part of Australia. I don't think a merge is the best course of action, seeing as there is a separate article for Voices for Indi (would we have this merged and redirected to that article as well?). I think the media use of the term, even as a nebulous term to describe the demographic which elected these candidates, puts it on par with ideas like Red Tory or Blue Dog Democrat or The Waffle. Two of the last three were internal factions within existing parties, one is more a ideological distinction. While it is a little bit of a WP:CRYSTAL, I imagine that political scientists will be looking at the concept of a Teal Independent and how it played into this election as people write their post-mortems about this election. Bkissin (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The teal independents and the "voices of" movements overlap but aren't synonymous; there were viable candidates of both groups who weren't in the other group, and others who were in both. They've also got somewhat different histories, albeit both tracing lineage from Voices for Indi. I think they're pretty distinct and that trying to merge the two movements (as opposed to clearly, separately explaining each) would just create an incomprehensible mess, and that Voices for Indi was such a significant campaign/group, already having a ton of book references, that it really warrants its own article as distinct from the broader movements that it inspired. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep A gnews search indicates the term is well used in various media in Australia during and post the election. Satisfies WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, with lower-case initials. I found the article helpful overall, as a Brit who hadn't heard of teals until they appeared in the Australian election news. I understand the concerns about being over-prescriptive about the word's associations, but do not regards these as strong enough grounds for total deletion – which would surely open the floodgates to uninformed or biassed (either way) people piling in with their own unhelpful definitions.  Better to keep the article open as a consensus-seeking forum. I would prefer "teal independents" as being much less prescriptive than "Teal Independents". 79.73.19.136 (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that we should use lowercase "teal" rather than uppercase, although that can be changed regardless of this AFD discussion. Steelkamp (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As it describes a political phenomenon and is a highly notable occurrence in Australian politics. While the term is arguable ill-defined, that is merely because of how it is used, and wikipedia is not here to pass judgement on the definitions of terms Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Snow keep Clearly this topic should be covered. This appears to be a content dispute dressed up as an AfD because it's about how to talk about the Teals. Bondegezou (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2022 (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.