Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement


WP:FAKEARTICLE in Talk space. Is under a "moderated discussion" sub-page, but doesn't seem to be referenced in any discussion. No significant edits since 2013. RL0919 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per discussion at Articles for deletion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement. If the author can clarify why this exists (ie, referenced in an old discussion) I can revisit my !vote. VQuakr (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created this article. I am topic banned indefinitely or I would be updating it. Others should be editing and updating this article. If I recall correctly, we discussed the creation of this article on the Talk page of the Tea Party movement article. The subject is very notable in the recent political history of the United States. As noted in the article, the Tea Party was instrumental in the Republican tsnunami of November 2010, when the Republicans had a net gain of 63 seats in the House. This effectively stopped the Obama legislative agenda in its tracks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The nominated page is a Talk sub-page, not an article. Also, you should be aware that your topic ban prohibits participation in deletion discussions related to the topic. --RL0919 (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * P&W, sorry for unintentionally inviting you to violate your topic ban. It is not an article, it is a subpage of unexplained utility. As such my previous !vote appears to be correct. VQuakr (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.