Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tennessee Tax Revolt


 * 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. The thorough analysis of available sources below shows pretty clearly that most editors involved in the discussion are not convinced that the organization is notable. While many sources that mention TTR were produced, few or none of them were deemed to demonstrate that the organization passes WP:GNG. -Scottywong | chat _ 17:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Tennessee Tax Revolt

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Almost completely unsourced since 12/2009. Lots of he-said-she-said assertions with no source backing up either side. Lots of uncited opinion. Even the article states It seems unlikely that the Tax Revolt group will succeed in enacting anything resembling its "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" on the statewide level any time soon, so I'm not sure the notability is there, even on a local level. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep · Certainly a poorly sourced article but there are more than a hundred Google News hits and a half dozen Google Books hits including mention in the Congressional Record. I keep seeing AfDs like this... seriously, if there are more than a hundred Google News hits WP:SNOW pretty much applies unless you have an extremely novel and well-argued deletion rationale. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 17:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The top GNews hit, "Others Copy Tennessee Tax Revolt" is dated 20 years before the group's founding. The fifth one, "Tax Rebels Need A History Lesson", doesn't mention the group by name. On page 2, "Memphis takes tax trophy" appears to be a reprinted press release, as do a couple of hits on the first page. Another article talks about "the Great Tennessee Tax Revolt of 2000", without specifically tying it to the Tennessee Tax Revolt group. Many quote Ben Cunningham as head of the TTR, but don't otherwise deal with TTR.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet you can go out to the tenth page of results and find things like a 2005 article that is entirely about the group's views on legislative ethics reform. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 19:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to that link, it's an Op-Ed, and hence not a WP:Reliable source. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at Reliable_source which is the part of the guideline that mentions Op-Eds, it says "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like '(Author) says...'" which is the qualifier the article I linked to has - "The group wants lawmakers to pass legislation in five key areas..." So, unless it's written by a member of the group (which seems unlikely as the excerpt returned by the Google search is referring to TTR in the third person) and therefore isn't independent (unfortunately that information appears to be behind the paywall) it's valid coverage for assessing notability.  An Op-Ed isn't just a letter to the editor or something, it's normally a journalistic or other authoritatively-authored piece that isn't written by the publication's editorial staff.  But I don't even know why we're talking about this, it's the hundredth search result and just a handful of them, not to mention the handful of Google Books hits, would probably be sufficient to establish notability for most topics. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 19:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This is related to two other active AfD nominations: Articles_for_deletion/Phil Valentine and Articles_for_deletion/An Inconsistent Truth. --Orlady (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: There is a very big difference between the use of the words "Tennessee," "tax" and "revolt" in any given Google hit, and the existence of an organized group which satisfies the GNG and applicable notability and verifiability criteria. I am rather curious as to what methodology Mr. Bandersnatch used to support his "hundred" GNews hits, because the one I just tried for "Tennessee Tax Revolt" produced just ONE hit: the website linked in the Wikipedia article.    Ravenswing   18:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hit the "Archives" link on the left, you'll see them. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, if you look at the top of this AfD (as with all others that are created using the standard process) there are links to the various specialized Google search engines, including a Google News Archives search for the phrase "Tennessee Tax Revolt". -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 19:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no credible sources in article or google search Bulwersator (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so that everyone's clear, these are sources like The Tennessean, The MetroWest Daily News, Chattanooga Times Free Press, The Jackson Sun, Nashville Public Radio, WMC-TV, what appear to be a large number of the local papers in the state, and a book written by an Associate Professor for the Institute of Government at Tennessee State University and an Assistant Professor in the Division of Public and Nonprofit Administration at the University of Memphis, which we are saying aren't credible sources, and I didn't even go through all the search results. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 21:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Two whole paragraphs. Obviously notable, what was I thinking? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you only found two paragraphs amongst all of those sources I think that you are being as willfully obtuse in pursuit of your desired outcome as Bulwersator is in claiming that he can see no credible sources. Trust me, I don't like this group's politics either: this spokesman and anyone who agrees with him were obviously proto-Teahadi dimwits.  But for some reason all of the papers in Tennessee have kept going back to interview him and kept reporting on his group's positions on all kinds of different topics for a decade, with it already being referred to as a "leading anti-tax group" seven years ago.  Groups who have received far less attention have been found notable under Wikipedia guidelines.  I mean, look at WP:MUSICBIO - all that a band requires to meet notability is multiple items of independent coverage in reliable sources that aren't press releases, directory listings, or postings of show dates.  You are pushing for a standard of notability utterly different from what has been used on Wikipedia so far and the way to do that is not through trying to lever AfDs through on higher strictures of notability: if you want to pitch this what you need to do is campaign to get the policies and guidelines changed. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 01:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit summary for the "two paragraphs" quote referred to the book you mentioned. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Gee, you mean that before reacting to what was written I should have clicked on a few links to make some checks that take only a minute or two to perform? What a novel idea.  &lt;/sarcasm font off&gt; -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 04:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 22:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 22:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Tennessee Tax Revolt has become a huge force in the state of Tennessee and has been either partially or entirely responsible for stopping a number of new taxes in the state. It is regularly a go-to source on tax issues and has been featured or quoted in numerous newspaper and Internet articles pertaining to the issue of taxes in Tennessee.  It should definitely be included on Wikipedia.  --The Authenticator (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Not eligible for WP:SPEEDYKEEP. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per SoV Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment to Keep !voters: all you have to do is find substantial coverage in say 3 independent reliable sources and this whole AFD thing will go away. Please stop telling us how important the group is and just post some sources. Thanks, – Lionel (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.ntu.org/in-your-state/tennessee/ (look under Taxpayer Groups in TN) http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15311072/preds-propose-letting-insiders-concessions-deal-run-to-2043 (TN Tax Revolt quoted as a reliable source for this TV report) http://www.wsmv.com/story/16097272/some-want-tn-to-begin-traditional-retirement-plans (quoted as another reliable source for this TV report) http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100926/NEWS02/9260384/Tennessee-reaps-115-million-stealth-taxes (TN Tax Revolt quoted as an expert source for this newspaper story) http://m.knoxnews.com/news/2012/feb/06/tom-humphrey-study-touting-tourism-related-spendin/ (quoted as an expert source for another newspaper story) http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/nashville-gets-its-own-tea-party-branch
 * Comment Great point, Lionelt. Here are some links for everyone to consider:

There are many, many more. I live in Nashville and each time there's a tax-related story the media folks go straight to TN Tax Revolt. --The Authenticator (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate to break the bad news to you, but "being quoted" does not count toward notability. We need a source to substantially discuss the subject itself. Please read WP:GNG and follow it carefully.. Of the sources you posted nashvillecitypaper.com is the only one that counts toward notability. Find a couple more of those... – Lionel (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's those favoring deletion who need to read notability guidelines and follow them closely. There actually hasn't been any argument made yet that would demonstrate a lack of notability for this topic.  The nominator made complaints about how the article is written, which has nothing to do with notability - a poorly-sourced or poorly-written article does not render its topic non-notable; what Wikipedia has said about a topic has nothing to do with whether it's notable or not and AFD is not cleanup.  The nominator then made an attempt at a WP:CRYSTAL argument, which would relevant if the article or anyone else was asserting that the importance of the topic is based entirely upon future events that are likely to occur, but that is not the case.


 * So, somebody ought to actually come up with a valid deletion rationale based upon notability or another valid reason for deletion. Being interviewed, quoted, and described by journalists from a wide number of publications seeking information, repeatedly over the course of a decade, is sure as hell relevant to the notability of an organization of political activists seeking to achieve authority and influence on tax policy.


 * If the argument that is (not) being made is that none of the hundred-plus sources which the nominator himself posted links to via find sources when he created the AfD, nor any sources that could be found elsewhere, establish notability, then you guys better get to work because you need to go through each one and explain how it either doesn't discuss the topic at all or only mentions it in a trivial fashion. I would start with the ones that have already been mentioned that Lionelt somehow missed, such as the one that explicitly asserted notability by referring to the organization as a "leading anti-tax group" seven years ago.  Don't act as though the burden is on us to look into all of this for you: if you think that it's Somebody Else's Problem to actually investigate the topic of this article and obtain information about the nature and quality of the sources that cover it you shouldn't be asserting that it isn't notable.  (Nor that it's notable, either way, if you can't be arsed to do any research on it even when the links are presented to you on a silver platter.) -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 10:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as subject fails cross the verifiability or notability thresholds with citations to reliable third-party sources. I've added one source about some of the 2001 protests but that's support for one sentence in a long essay/article. And it does nothing to assert the existence of "Tennessee Tax Revolt" as a formal organized group. - Dravecky (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To do a little bit of your work for you: Tennessee Tax Revolt, Inc. is a "Public Benefit Corporation" (evidently a state-level form of nonprofit) incorporated on 2001-10-22 which has filed its state annual report every year for the past decade and lists its current registered agent as a person named Rick Durham whose address is 4741 Trousdale Dr., Ste. 2, Nashville, TN 37220-1341 and their entry at the Tennessee Department of State Division of Charitable Solicitations and Gaming gives his phone number as 615-354-0719. Is that formally organized and existent enough for ya?  Though besides that, just being an informal disorganized group doesn't mean something couldn't be documented on Wikipedia, especially with this amount of coverage in so many sources.


 * Certainly, most of the content of the current article may need to be deleted if it is not present in the hundred sources we have easily at hand and different information put in its place, maybe reducing it to a stub. Can you be more specific about your issues with the sources?  Are you saying that the ones which have been discussed here are not reliable, not third party, or that every one of them provides only something like trivial coverage of the subject? -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 13:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply: I've made a good faith effort to find reliable third-party sources for this article and even added one to the article. The fact remains that it's the only such source currently in the article and it does nothing to prove the existence of the group. (It pre-dates the filing you mention.) If any part of this article is to survive, it must be properly sourced. Adding several reliable third-party sources to the article may help improve verifiability and prove notability. As the article stands, it's not salvageable. Dravecky (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly believe that you are speaking in good faith but you may misunderstand what's going on here: the rationale for deletion in this AfD, which your opinion/!vote is agreeing with, is based on the notability of the topic of the article. As I mentioned above, the way that an article is written or sourced has no affect on whether or not its topic is notable - the notability of a topic is completely independent of anything than happens at Wikipedia (except insofar as the "notability" we're talking here is, as a concept, a bit of Wikipedia jargon rather than the standard English meaning of the word.)  Thus, an article being poorly written is not any justification for deletion.  An editor participating in an AfD and assessing the notability of a topic is expected to investigate that topic outside of Wikipedia, which is why the find sources template is inserted by default at the top of any AfD created through the standard process, or search for might be added at an editor's discretion to provide easy links to an even wider variety of specialized search engines. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 14:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've only been editing Wikipedia for 5 years and an admin for 3.5 years so do please explain WP:N to me. Here's the second sentence of that guideline: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." So lacking these reliable third-party sources in the article, verifiability and notability are not proven and the article will likely be deleted. I said nothing about the quality of the writing in my !vote above, just that it lacked proper sourcing and that I had been unable to find any quality sources covering the subject in-depth. Fix that and the problem is solved. - Dravecky (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pet peeve: No, the high-quality sources don't have to be in the article, it just has to be established that they exist. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As SoV says. The AfD process is not cleanup, it is not a venue for some editors to goad others into working on an article. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 23:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment · I've noticed that there is an article for TTR spokesperson Ben Cunningham (activist). Since many of the editors here seem disturbed at how prominently Cunningham figures in the ample coverage of the Tennessee Tax Revolt group we have available, how about a merge of the two articles?  This would be as acceptable to me as a keep.  So, as an alternative to keeping the article of this AfD, let me propose that instead we could do a History Merge of the Cunningham article into the Tennessee Tax Revolt article, initially to appear as a subsection in it, and allow rewriting and pruning to occur as appropriate. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 14:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear since I realized that my wording above may have been ambiguous, I am proposing the the Tennessee Tax Revolt article itself remain and the Cunningham article be merged in as a new subsection describing the TTR's main spokesperson, after which any necessary rewriting or pruning may occur. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 14:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per Struthious excellent suggestion. Will change to Keep if a couple more sources show up. – Lionel (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Little evidence here that this organization passes WP:GNG.  A search of archival news articles brought up mostly op-eds and did not reveal significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  Gobōnobo  + c 01:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How many out of the hundred-plus sources would you say were Op-Eds? I just randomly clicked on six of the links and got two editorials, one "local" news story, two "local/regional" news stories, an "editorial roundup" that the New England Cable News channel decided to do of Tennessee papers, and zero Op-Eds.  But note anyways, as per the discussion above, Op-Eds and Editorials are not automatically categorized outside of independent reliable sources irrelevant to notability. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 11:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. According to HighBeam Research, it looks like the organisation had its heyday in 2001-2 when it got coverage in Albany Times Union, NPR Morning Edition, AP Online, The Washington Post and The Cincinnati Post. Since then all the HighBeam hits have come from local papers (Chattanooga Times and The Commercial Appeal). I'd support merging Cunningham into this, too. —S MALL  JIM   12:52, 31 May 2012 (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.