Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea party (protest)

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. MBisanz ^talk 06:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tea party (protest)

Trivial events. Non-notable except to those in attendance. — Red XIV ^(talk) 04:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is encyclopedic in that it chronicles a significant development in 2009 USA. Martel,C (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that all of the events were covered by the newsmedia shows they were notable, like 'em or not. Borock (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can't have an article for every tiny pack of cranks. Carlo (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well noted in the media, well referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmol (talk • contribs)
Delete - agree entirely with Carlo. This will not go anywhere, and if it does, we'll cover it then. Slac speak up! 05:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - very well sourced from various sources around the country, and The Economist does not tend to cover insignificant events. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan. This shouldn't be a separate article because of WP:NOT#NEWS, but it shouldn't be deleted entirely because it's a sin against the basic purpose of writing an encyclopaedia to remove well-sourced information.— The article as written is much too long. It should be a short sub-section in Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan per WP:DUE.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if it's kept - the current name is ambiguous with the Boston Tea Party, after which these protests were named. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Joel Stein's article in TIME magazine ("I Bought a Bad House", Vol. 173, Issue 9) establishes international coverage of the protest. The AFD stack is not the correct place to discuss merging two-week old articles. Ottre 10:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Merge" is a valid AfD outcome, so it's perfectly appropriate to discuss it here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at your talk page. Ottre 13:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep- for now and revisit since it does seem like current event type material.Tom (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lack of context in this article is surprising. Do people throw tea in the water at these events (as with the "Boston Tea Party"; author may be the only person who went to school in America and never heard of that)? Or do they gather around drinking from teacups and munching on cookies? It's probably notable enough for a keep, but this article can use some improvement.

Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In one place (sorry, I don't remember where) local officials forbade the throwing of tea bags as they were considered to be pollution of the stream. htom (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, and revisit in a couple months. The number of stories we're seeing about it certainly does give the appearance of notability, but it would be better to re-examine things once the hype has died, to make sure that it really is as notable as we think it is. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, though I wouldn't strongly oppose a merge. As principal author of the article I think it could be better--mostly now it's just a description of Rick Santelli's CNBC rant (lifeted directly by me from Rick's bio) and a list of events. Local coverage of the events has been quite good and the planned Tax Day protests on April 15 are likely to get national news coverage. Attendance has varied from a dozen or so people to an initial police estimate of 3,000 at Orlando last Sunday, I agree with Umbralcorax that this could be revisited later in the year, when the hype has died down. By then a firm merge candidate may have arisen (meanwhile I'm sympathetic to User:S_Marshall's merge suggestion). Complete deletion of all mention of these verifiable events would probably not advance our aims. --TS 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to say this is the first article I have seen on AFD with so many independent news sources. Needs a lot of cleanup, but obviously not a one event violation and obviously enough independent, third-party sources just in the article to jusfity keeping. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this series of events shows no evidence of being of any historical significance. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. --Atmoz (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these events are very significant as they have become more common. The mainstream media refuses to report on them and, as such, they have the appearance of being unimportant when they, in fact, are.--Barinade2151 (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I currently have no opinion on whether to Keep or Delete. If it is kept, I support re-naming the article since the current name could be confused with the Boston Tea Party. Also, someone needs to go through and fix the date formatting. This is a US based subject, so it should be US formatting (meaning MM/DD/YYYY). TJ Spyke 19:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the date formatting. The eventual name of the article, if it's kept, is probably worth discussing here. I'm open to suggestions. --TS 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I completely agree with Ottre. This article is two weeks old, and is still evolving. amram99 (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Atmoz, it fails Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. If it survives it probably needs to be globalised. The phenomena extends beyond America. Tea Parties have been used as a form of protest in other countries pre-dating the list of protests in the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - WP:NOT#NEWS and a bit of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms too. Furthermore if this ever were to deserve its own article, this would be a disastrous start - so there is zero merit in keeping it in case. Rd232 ^talk 23:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep well referenced article, no major issues which I can see. Ikip (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:RS, but I agree it should be revisited in the near future to determine if this has lasting significance or was just a trendy publicity stunt. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A scrabble of small-town news outlets doesn't quite measure up to notability guidelines. Also a bit of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#NEWS. At best, it warrants a brief mention in an article appropriate, perhaps Subprime mortgage crisis. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, it seems like it scrapes in, with strong reservations along the lines of Tarc. Artw (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tarc dsol (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Well referenced and with significant coverage in print and broadcast media. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see links to CBS news, and other notable news outlets. They got enough press to meet notability requirements. Dream Focus 19:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs better sourcing, as the "Tea Party movement" started back in January. htom (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bostontea.us/ (scroll down) for an example of the use of the name in January, before Santelli caught the media's eye. It may have started before then, but was just ignored by the mainstream media. htom (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appears to be enough independent press coverage to meet WP:notability. I've read and reread WP:NOT#NEWS, and I see nothing specific in that very vague policy that supports a delete here. —Kevin Myers 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant movement and growing fast. Kcarlin (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One of the central issues of the Tea Parties is the refusal of many biased mass media outlets to cover them. 15,000 people showed up in Fullerton CA and the LA times would not print a story. How ironic that Wikipedia would consider deletion because of a lack of full press coverage. Many newspapers have covered this however and this movement is a leading story for online and television news coverage. 250 cities are now scheduled for the April 15 protest. Keep and watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCCbiotech (talk • contribs)

this was the user's first edit. Rd232 ^talk 21:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What can anyone say? These are a completely notable set of ongoing protests that are described in a fair way. The Squicks (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Protests that are so big that the government has forcibly canceled them due to too many people... are a "tiny pack of cranks"? The Squicks (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.