Search

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2009

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 There is clear evidence that these events collectively, and many on their own, are notable. A list summarizing them is not un-encyclopedic. What remains is the need for an improvement effort to better summarize the events and remove the plethora of external links and individual charaterizations that give the impression of POV, linkfarming and OR. Renaming as suggested my also be a viable alternative to improving this material. These are all issues that can be worked out by interested editors on the article's talk page. Thanks to everyone participating for an interesting and civil debate. Mike Cline (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tea Party protests, 2009

List of Tea Party protests, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We don't do articles on any other ongoing protests by decentralized groups like this. There is no list of anti-Iraq War protests, or Code Pink Protests, or PETA anti-people protests, or British anti-surveillance protests, or anything else. Also include List of Tea Party protests, 2010 in this. I don't think it's material we need since we don't do this for the other countless protests held daily globally. sparkie 19:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that in commenting to this AfD you are also commenting to the deletion of List of Tea Party protests, 2010. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleteleaning towards keep'. sparkie gives a reason for deletion "we don't do articles on any other protests...". But I see an extremely large number[1] of "List of..." articles at Wikipedia. In short, exactly which WP:DEL policy item is being protested here? Otherwise, it appears that this is being deleted because IDON'TLIKEIT. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point to a single year by year list of protests? Or of flash mobs? Or political rallies? Or social gatherings? sparkie 20:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. I am just very weakly leaning towards keep. My problem is that I don't accept the "what else do you see" reasoning you give. Is there anything in the WP:DEL policy that supports deletion? I could easily be convinced, I just am asking for some policy based reasoning. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the events aren't notable. Tea Party protests is all we need. Why keep a list of all the protests of 10-1000 people? I can make a list of all the daily/weekly DC or Berkeley protests too, but they aren't notable either. sparkie 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. I presently favor delete of the "List of.." article per sparkie. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The individual summary lines for each protest are a subjective forum for making political statements. Saying that a crowd of 2,000 tea-party attendees are all protesting the exact same thing is not realistic. In that case, each summary can only approximate the editor's subjective views. The net effect is that the article is a place where someone's single viewpoint is repeated hundreds of times without restraint. Nothingofwater (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't the comments be a legitimate attempt to summarize what's in the source. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops. Sbower3 said it better below. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly a generalised article on their protests - maybe. A plain listing of protests - no great value. A listing which serves as an index to outside articles about each and every protest smacks of COI and soapbox. (I admit to being cynical...) Peridon (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list helps answer Who, What, Where, When, Why about the Tea Party protests. Who are the protesters? What are they protesting? Where have they protested? When did they protest? Why are they motivated to protest? Is the Tea Party movement (TPm) a regional phenomenon or is it widespread? Is it something that happened at sporadic intervals (e.g. April 15, July 4) or was it almost continual? This article is a very valuable resource for writing the TPm articles.
There is nothing in policy that says this should be deleted. There are lots of "List of" articles. The Tea Parties are notable.
The complaint that "the summary lines ... are a subjective forum for making political statements" is a complaint about content, not a reason for deletion. Each line attempts to summarize the content of a Reliable Source. If you don't think a summary is accurate, then edit it, don't try to delete it. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not a research project for original research which is what you're advocating. We can pimp the Tea Party on conservapedia. None of the protests are notable--a 30 man protest? Delete. Sparkiest 05:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Collecting Reliable Sources is original research? That's what we are supposed to do. Editors are supposed to collect RS, then summarize their content into articles. This List article is a collection of RS that editors can use to summarize the history and subject matter of the Tea Party protests (TPp). See WP:Summary Style. Additionally, it is a source of additional details for a reader who might be interested in more than the summary that is in the TPp article.
And as for "pimping" and conservapedia. You show your bias; you just don't want anything about the TPs in Wikipedia do you? Well, WP:Wikipedia is not censored - and that includes political censorship. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically Sbowers3, you state front and center on your talkpage that you are opposed to Ad Hominum attacks - yet isnt that what you just did above? (i'm not attacking - just reminding people to keep it civil, this whole discussion is getting WAY too tense already) We really should stick to the facts here. Nothingofwater (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm agreeing with sparkie on this one. This "List of..." in whole violates the synthesis portion of the WP:NOR policy. While each line is pointing to some article or tea party website entry, when viewed in aggregate the list is synthesizing a thesis about the overall movement not found in reliable sources that I can see. At the root, that seems to violate WP:SYN policy here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Since this article does not "reach or imply a conclusion" it does not violate SYN. "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing." That is exactly what this article tries to do: summarize what each RS says. There is no violation of SYN. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SaltyBoatr, what "thesis about the overall movement" do you see? Can you state that thesis explicitly? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the comments for sure. Use proper citations instead. As for the list itself, I'm undecided. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have any particular interest in maintaining/fixing up this article, but I created a draft redesign of the table format. The draft design includes fully sortable fields, adds a field for number of protestors (so one could sort to find significant events), and implements proper referencing. As I said, I don't have a particular interest in changing the entire article, but if someone were to implement this table design and write a proper lead which establishes notability, I wouldn't see a need for deletion. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's encyclopediac or notable about a list of 10-30 man protests though? Nice technical work but it doesn't change the irrelevancy of a lot of that. Sparkiest 13:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The Tea Party Movement seems to be characterised through these protests, and is a large reason for the current visibility of the group. The protests reported here seem to be referenced by reliable sources (but I haven't personally checked the reliability of each one). I just looked through the list and counted ~60 entries that mentioned 1,000 people or greater, so I think characterising the article as "a list of 10-30 man protests" is probably unfair ignores the larger entries. If at a later date the was consensus to restrict the list to only include 'major' protests (greater than a certain number of participants) then that would be fine, but I don't think the inclusion of the smaller protests is reason for an AfD. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about notability - From WP:N: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic." "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." What you or I think is relevant or large enough is not what matters. The fact that RS have decided that these protests are worth significant coverage makes them notable. As an editor I might decide not to include a protest of just 10 people (even though an RS decided it was notable), but I won't delete such an entry that another editor decides to add.
  • Along the same vein - just because the RS believes something to be worth covering, doesnt mean that it is worth inclusion here. This is an encyclopedia, not an archive. If i started an article called 'List of events in <insert small town here> police blotter', and backed every one up with a RS (hometown newspaper, official police blotter, etc) - it would the same as what we have here. Yes, it meets the RS guidelines, but it is neither notable nor encyclopedic. Nothingofwater (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, should someone try to call me on such an article, i could easily counter by accusing them of violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and say they are just opposed to my small town or police blotters, or whatever. Frankly i see this happening here. People with opposing viewpoints on a political matter are using this discussion as a football. The thinly veiled arguments for and against are not really talking about the article's merit as an encyclopedic entry (if any). If we need a forum to discuss the merits or criticisms of Tea Parties - the Internet is a big place, and there's plenty of room for that elsewhere. Nothingofwater (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about Deletion policy - Nobody has stated a reason for deletion based on policy. What it comes down to is I don't like it, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.
  • "An AfD discussion is not a vote. It is a discussion of whether policies allow or disallow the type of article. Referencing policies is what will make or break it. Even if 10 editors state an article should be deleted, and one editor states the article should be kept, but the one who wants it kept gives a good argument citing policy, while the other ten give none, this is sufficient grounds for keeping an article."

Sbowers3 (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment about lists and notability - After reviewing the relevant guidelines on lists and notability, I'm still not convinced that the list should be deleted. The first reason given for deletion appeared to be precedent, then shifted to notability. I agree, 20 or 30 people gathering on a street corner somewhere and making a lot of noise is not terribly notable. But when it happens hundreds of times (with crowds of varying sizes) across the span of a year and change, well, something's "going on". I agree with Tntnnbltn's proposal for reformatting and staking out the notability claim first.--Happysomeone (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting the history of these two "List of..." articles. There is already an article Tea Party protests, and these "List of..." articles were a split out[2] once already as part of an earlier reformatting. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth noting that there is also an article on the Tea Party movement. Both articles use List of Tea Party protests, 2009 (and List of Tea Party protests, 2010) as sub-detail articles in their History section. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Tea Party movement article does have a link to these two pages, under the history section. But these pages don't provide any history of the TPM other than a listing of events. By history I mean a narrative of why the Tea Party started, who organized it, how it gained prominence, etc... A more appropriate article to have linked there would be a 'History of the Tea Party Movement'. I dont think such an article exists, but it would be a worthy project and an article worth reading if someone wrote it... Nothingofwater (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. WP:SYNTH, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTNEWS. Most of the protests aren't notable. Some of the sources are unreliable or inaccessible, and many of them don't even mention the Tea Party movement. The link descriptions themselves are one-sided and propagandistic. — Rankiri (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete the article is nothing but a linkfarm. WP:NOT reads "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links" A standard EL cleanup would blank the entire page! Also the list itself violates points 3 and 4 WP:IINFO, dealing with excessive listing of statistics and news reports. ThemFromSpace 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking Rankiri’s points above in order:
    • WP:SYNTH: LoTPp2009 doesn't "combine material from multiple sources" because, being a list of sources, every source is independent from every other source.
    • WP:SOAPBOX: Maybe but first, can anyone supply me with one or two examples of soapbox? And second, even if (let’s say) 90% of the entries are proven to be POV, that’s a reason for changing or removing that 90% (by tagging them with [neutrality is disputed] tag and waiting), not deleting the whole article. I know it’s easier to say "I’m busy, get rid of them all" but someone (or a lot of someones) spent days or weeks amassing the article.
    • WP:LINKFARM#1: IMO, this is the strongest argument. As a matter of fact, WP:ELNO#20 says “one should avoid...external links [to web pages outside Wikipedia] as entries in stand-alone lists”.
    • WP:NOTNEWS#4: Although the Tea Party movement and protests are notable, almost all of the individual news stories contained in LoTPp2009 are, IMO, not. So, unless you want to develop real articles on individual or groups of news stories, LoTPp2009 and LoTPp2010 should be deleted according to policy. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SYNTH also refers to implying conclusions not explicitly stated by any of the sources, and some of the link descriptions do just that. According to the source, April's protest in Youngstown only had "about 200 people". The article claims the number was 300 and separately implies that the comparatively low figure was related to the fact that Youngstown is a "heavily democrat area". Another event's source only says that one of the event's organizers "said he aimed to have an educational event, rather than a protest". The link description twists that into "[a]bout 350 people attended "an educational event, rather than a protest"". Do you see the pattern? — Rankiri (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That first entry does not fit the pattern of all the other entries for that day. Look at them and you will see only a number. That one should have said only "About 200" - directly from the RS with no editorializing. I have fixed it. The second entry correctly uses the number 350 directly from the source and because the RS did not describe the topic of the protest (e.g. spending) the entry quotes what the RS said was the organizer's purpose. I fail to see how that "twists" anything. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source about Youngstown does say 200 but (IMO) this could have easily been a typo. However, this source says nothing about "heavily democratic". In the blub about the second source in Olympia presents (IMO) a fair summary of the first two paragraphs of the story. That's two examples with only one mistake. You can't delete hundreds of entries because two or twenty or even two hundred fail some test by saying "I’m too busy to bother about this; let's get rid of the whole list." What you're supposed to do is change them into something more reasonable, in your opinion. Or place disputed tags next to all those you feel are wrong, wait a month or two and then remove any disputed entry that has not been changed. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source itself doesn't consider it an educational event. Implying that it does is synthesis of published material that advances a position. The same goes for the rest of the links. The pages have no content except for the link descriptions, and if these slogan-like descriptions were regular WP prose, they would undeniably be considered a violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV-related policies. If you still think that there is nothing wrong with these link descriptions, surely you wouldn't mind if I described the 03/20/2010 Washington protest as "thousands of "idiots out there saying stupid things""? Just because the words are in the sources([3][4][5]) doesn't mean that they belong to an encyclopedia. — Rankiri (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to reiterate that a lot of links with attention grabbing descriptions like 4,000 rallied against out-of-control spending and erosion of personal liberty, Hundreds rallied against big government and big spending or About 6,000 rallied for freedom and against the direction government is heading link to nonexistent pages. — Rankiri (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there'll be WP:LINKROT in a list containing sources that are over one year old. Again, put dead-link tags on each missing entry, wait a while to see if anybody thinks it's worthwhile to consult the Wayback machine and then remove each dead-link entry. You could even stick both dead-link and disputed tags on the same entry if you like. Or even talk on the talk page? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, very reluctantly. (Changed to Keep and Move below.) Unless someone can show me where I went wrong under WP:LINKFARM. Is there anyplace under Wikipedia that we could store such a list of sources and not get deleted? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LINKFARM says to see WP:External Links for more guidance, which in turn says "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content." I don't believe linkfarm applies if the list of links are being used to cite actual information in the article. If it did, then virtually every well-referenced article would be subject to linkfarm. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that the lists use external links or even that they use them inline. The problem is that the lists are stand-alone lists. There's virtually no content in them except for the actual externally-linked sources (and their blubs). Therefore, according to ELNO#20 the two lists should be deleted. I'm sorry because editors use those lists in order to provide content in the Tea Party protests and Tea Party movement articles. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note about POV

The following is from an earlier Talk page discussion. I think it is highly relevant to complaints above about POV.

Nearly every line in this list has ... a biased political opinion. Let me cite a few example:

  • May 31, Kernersville, North Carolina - Taxpayers want to stop increased government spending
  • June 16, Albany, New York - Nearly 1000 objected to out of control spending and intrusive government
  • Orlando, Florida - Many hundreds rallied against government intrusion into citizen's lives

Reply (copied from Talk page):

You claim that the summaries are POV but the summaries come directly from the sources:

  • May 31, Kernersville, North Carolina - Taxpayers want to stop increased government spending
  • June 16, Albany, New York - Nearly 1000 objected to out of control spending and intrusive government
  • Orlando, Florida - Many hundreds rallied against government intrusion into citizen's lives

The NPOV policy requires that "content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I submit that the summaries above do represent fairly the views that have been published by reliable sources. If you do not agree then how would you summarize each of those articles?

Some people have a misconception that NPOV requires that every article display no POV at all. The NPOV policy states otherwise, "It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view." The Tea Partiers obviously think that too much government spending is a bad thing. Others think that the government should spend even more. It is NOT our job to balance those two POVs. It's our job to balance what appears in the sources. If there are three sources about a particular TP event and all three report that the protesters were against excessive spending then that is what we say in our article. If the sources disagree as to what the protesters said, then we summarize and present those sources in proportion to the viewpoint of the sources.

The content of this article describes the POV of the protesters but that is necessarily true if it is to be a "fair, analytical description" of what was said at the events "as evidenced by reliable sources". If we were to try to remove the POV of the protesters then we would be violating the NPOV policy: "material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is 'POV'."

There is sadly a problem with some dead links. Many newspapers keep material for only six months (or even less). These links should NOT be deleted. See WP:DEADREF. It may be appropriate to mark them with the {{dead link}} template.

Sbowers3 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a fault in this - and that is the assumption that the entire group of people are protesting the same thing. Is it reasonable to believe that the people who rallied against spending were not also opposing percieved government corruption? or Increased taxes? A more realistic view is that the event noted had a much more homogenous objective, and that the caption for most of the events in this article could be used interchangeably to describe the sentiment at most other events.
    Again I come back to this point, that just because something is newsworthy doesnt automatically make it notable, or encyclopedic. Taken as a whole, this page adds nothing more to the description of the history of the Tea Party movement than merely documenting the minutes of each event. And considering the summaries, I would say that it doesnt even do that very well. Nothingofwater (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On your first point, the summaries come from the RS. If there is an invalid assumption that everybody was protesting the same thing, that is the fault of the RS. But that would be true of pretty much every RS report about any group of people. It's their job to summarize as best they can what the people said. It's our job to summarize what the RS said.
  • On your second point, this article lists the history of the TPm with details about who, what, when, where. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again, the article doesn't really "summarize and present those sources in proportion to the viewpoint of the sources". It uses cherry-picked quotes from the events organizers in a manner that is clearly incompatible with WP:NPOV. In particular, see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and my earlier comment about "thousands of "idiots out there saying stupid things"". — Rankiri (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking for my entries, I did not cherry pick quotes. I tried honestly to summarize what the RS said. I have provided four separate examples with quotes from the RS and my summary. Please tell me how my summaries are inconsistent with the RS. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated reply

I will consolidate here my replies rather than scatter them among the various objections.

  • "We don't do articles on any other ongoing protests by decentralized groups like this. ... I don't think it's material we need since we don't do this for the other countless protests held daily globally." WP:Deletion policy states reasons for deletion. "Other stuff doesn't exist" is not a reason.
  • "the events aren't notable." The Tea Party protests article is indisputably notable. This is a daughter article to that article. In accordance with WP:Summary it contains more detail than is appropriate for the main article. The events in this article are notable by definition - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Most of them have had multiple sources.
  • "Why keep a list of all the protests of 10-1000 people?" As Tntnnbltn observed there are ~60 entries of more than 1000 people. We don't delete an entire article because parts of it may not be important by some editors' subjective judgment.
  • "What's encyclopediac or notable about a list of 10-30 man protests though?" Happysomeone answered well: "I agree, 20 or 30 people gathering on a street corner somewhere and making a lot of noise is not terribly notable. But when it happens hundreds of times (with crowds of varying sizes) across the span of a year and change, well, something's "going on"."
  • "The individual summary lines for each protest are a subjective forum for making political statements." Even if true (I disagree), that is grounds for editing, not for deleting an article. I cannot speak for others' contributions but all of mine were an honest attempt to summarize what RS reported. E.g.
    • May 31, Kernersville, North Carolina - Taxpayers want to stop increased government spending
  • "A plain listing of protests - no great value." Even if true (I disagree), that is not grounds for deletion. This is a concise history of the Tea Party protests, which is definitely notable. A history of a subject is certainly a valuable part of any subject's article. The history section was too detailed for that article so it was split out into a separate article, IAW with WP:Summary. One may argue that this is too concise, that it should have more prose, but that is grounds for editing, not for deleting.
  • violates WP:SYNTH. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Since this article does not "reach or imply a conclusion" it does not violate SYN. "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing." That is exactly what this article tries to do: summarize what each RS says. There is no violation of SYN.
  • "But these pages don't provide any history of the TPM other than a listing of events. By history I mean a narrative of why the Tea Party started, who organized it, how it gained prominence, etc." That is an argument for editing the content, not for deleting all of it. Conceptually, this article is the history of the TPM. Perhaps it should have a {{Prose}} tag, but that is not grounds for deleting.
  • Some complaints were mere assertions without evidence, e.g., WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NOTNEWS. RoyGoldsmith answered the substance of these point by point. Even if these complaints were justified, they are reason for editing, not deleting.
  • WP:LINKFARM is a valid policy objection but this article does not violate the letter of the law, nor in my opinion the spirit. It states "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links ... see Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines." WP:EL in turn states that "The subject of this guideline is external links that are NOT citations to sources supporting article content." But every one of these ELs is a citation to a source supporting article content. The content is minimal and perhaps should be substantially increased but there is content. E.g.
  • September 19, Milwaukee, Wisconsin - Nearly 10,000 protest level of government spending
Every word of that entry is article content. It answers When, Where, Who (how many), What (they protested). Some might prefer more content, but there is content and I would argue that it is an accurate summary of the source. The source's headline and first sentence read:
It is very concise but being concise is not a violation of policy. And if in the opinion of others it violates the spirit of the policy, then that is grounds for improving the content not deleting the article.
Summary
  • Most of the complaints are not grounds for deleting an article. At most they are reason for improving the content.
  • The article is a concise history of the Tea Party protests. The main article is indisputably notable. By extension, this daughter article is notable. The entries in this article are notable in and of themselves, in that they have had significant coverage.
  • The only policy objection is LINKFARM, but this article complies with the letter and arguably the spirit of that policy.
  • WP:DEL states "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.

Even if the closing admin decides that this page violates policy, it should not be deleted. Time should be given to improve the content so as to satisfy specified policy-based criteria.

For the sake of readability, I request that any replies be posted below, not interspersed in my post. Interspersed replies would make it hard to know who said what because there are not signatures on each of my points. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of List of Tea Party protests, 2009

Concerning WP:LINKFARM: Sbowers3, in your opinion, is "List of Tea Party protests, 2009" a stand-alone list? Almost all SALs list article subjects in Wikipedia based on some criteria. That is, they wikilink using double-square-brackets. They don't HTML link to non-Wikimedia web pages using single square-brackets starting with //http:. A SAL's purpose is to bring together already written Wikipedia articles. LoTPp2009 seems to associate source references.

I have a rather bold idea. Instead of deleting "List of Tea Party protests, 2009", why not simply move it to something like "Tea Party protest sources in 2009" (and similar for 2010)? In this way I believe we could eliminate most of the discussion here and concentrate on NPOV and other, material disagreements about the article itself, mostly on the articles' talk pages. This would also remove any objections to LINKFARM#20 and give us the chance to settle down with the new names. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a conventional stand-alone list. It is a concise - perhaps excessively concise - history of the Tea Party protests. Perhaps it should be renamed "History of the Tea Party protests, 2009" (and 2010). It has content that answers When, Where, Who (how many), and What (they protested) and each statement has a RS. As a matter of style, it is generally preferable - but not mandatory - for the sources not to be inline ELs but rather to be links to a References section entry. But that is a matter of style, not a reason to delete the article.
Consider how the article could be formatted differently:
1. Current:
  • September 1
2. In prose with inline ELs:
On September 1st there were three protests: In Bemidji, Minnesota, hundreds gathered for Freedom Fest.[6] In Jacksonville, Florida, about 500 attended a Tea Party town hall on health care reform.[7] In Valdosta, California, about 200 protested universal health care.[8]
3. In prose with linked references:
On September 1st there were three protests: In Bemidji, Minnesota, hundreds gathered for Freedom Fest.[1] In Jacksonville, Florida, about 500 attended a Tea Party town hall on health care reform.[2] In Valdosta, California, about 200 protested universal health care.[3]
The content of these three is the same; only the style is different. The latter two forms cannot be considered LINKFARMs. Since the first form has the exact same substance, neither should it be considered a LINKFARM. To further dispel the notion that it is a LINKFARM, we should rename it to "History of Tea Party protests, 2009".
Because the only complaint that is based on Deletion policy is LINKFARM, and because that is nothing more than in issue of style over substance, this AFD should be dismissed, perhaps with the recommendation that it be renamed and the style improved. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't we have another name than "History of Tea Party protests, 2009"? Tea Party protests already has a History section. Eventually the editors of this article will want to summarize and split that section into a main, summarized section and a detailed sub-article. Following standard procedure, they'll want to name the sub-article "History of Tea Party protests" but only have an edited subset of all the references here in that sub-article. Couldn't we change the name to something like "Day-to-day history of Tea Party protests reported on the web in 2009" or just "Day-to-day history of Tea Party protests, 2009"? Nevertheless, I support:
  • I don't understand the reason behind this sudden change of mind. What do the articles' names have to do with WP:LINKFARM and other mentioned policy violations? — Rankiri (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article names that start with "List of" are generally thought of as stand-alone lists. So far, the only reason for deletion based on deletion policy (as opposed to a consensus to Delete for other, non-policy reasons) is WP:ELNO#20 which says that "one should avoid...external links [to web pages outside Wikipedia] as entries in stand-alone lists" and WP:LINKFARM#1 which says "Wikipedia articles are not...mere collections of external links...". It was proven (at least to my satisfaction) by formats 2 and 3 above that the current phrasing of LoTPPp2009/10 does contain content and therefore are not "mere collections of external links". Renaming the articles makes it clear to everyone that the two acticles are not stand-alone lists. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but support editing or possible move to better comply with variety of concerns cited above. Move to delete still seems pretty evenly divided. Is there any movement from other editors?--Happysomeone (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sbowers3's vehement objections don't change the fact that many of these events aren't notable, and many, if not most of the given citations are taken out of context, falsely attributed, badly sourced or downright unverifiable.
Here, take this source: July 3, Rochester, New York - About 500 people gathered to protest government spending and lack of Christian principles in political life. Aside from the fact that the source doesn't even mention the word "Christian", it also happens to be a blog.
If you think that the source was cherry-picked (in fact, the choice was completely random), let's take a look at the one that follows it: July 4, Katy, Texas - About 1500 braved 100+ degree heat to protest government spending. For one, the quality of the source is highly disputable as appears to be a non-notable local news blog. Secondly, the actual description states that "[m]ore than 1,500 people braved triple-digit heat to take part in a July 4 “tea party” rally and picnic in Waller County Saturday afternoon." Oh, those brave picnic goers, who "sat beneath umbrellas", "brought camping shelters, grills and picnic food", or "simply sat on the grass in whatever shade was available" and "shared a slice of watermelon beneath a large beach umbrella". Their intrepid display of patriotism was certainly most impressive. So, long story short, whoever wrote that description was just about as objective and impartial as the Soviet Information Bureau.
The next source has a surprisingly neutral description (how many and where), so let's jump to the next one: July 17 - Opponents of government run health care protest at Rep. Bishop's office. The source looks good...except that it's a public announcement of the upcoming event, published two days in advance, on July 15. I mean, come on. Considering that the pattern more or less continues throughout the entire page, I find it hard to believe that someone who actually looked at the quality of the listed sources and their descriptions can see any encyclopedic value, let alone objectivity, in such a list. — Rankiri (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the content is bad and should be edited/deleted. But those are not grounds for deleting the entire article.
Your first item has an unreliable source. I gave it a {{Verify credibility}} tag and edited out the Christian principles part. Then I searched for a valid RS. Not finding one I deleted the entry. Your third one, as you correctly observed, was an announcement. I googled for an RS, then not finding one, deleted. The third one I tagged as {{Verify credibility}}. At first glance I'm not sure whether or not it is reliable so I won't delete until I am sure one way or the other, or I find an RS. As to the summary, it obviously comes directly from the source so any complaint about the wording belongs with the source, not the editor. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've decided to endorse deletion on the basis of WP:WEIGHT: "An article's coverage of individual events or opinions involving its subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the topic. This is an important consideration when reporting on recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail..." The entire article gives undue weight to individual protests that would never meet notability as individual subjects. We don't have a List of Lady Gaga Concerts, 2009 and those certainly draw more people. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But can you specify a reason for deletion based on deletion policy, as opposed to a consensus to Delete for other, non-policy reasons like WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTE (for some entries) or WP:NPOV (again for some entries). The proper way of dealing with these is to edit the article and possibly remove some or most of the material. It seems to me that some editor might create a Day-to-day history of Lady Gaga Concerts, 2009 and, if he follows the rules, that article should not be deleted as an article but should be edited until it meets consensus. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I disagree. The last line of WP:DEL#REASON links to WP:NOT. The only provision of NOT that has been successfully advanced is WP:NOTLINK#1, also known as LINKFARM. I say that, if the article was rewitten to be entirely in format 3 above and renamed "Day-to-day history of Tea Party movements in 2009 [or 2010]", it would pass the criteria of LINKFARM and thus, of NOTLINK#1 and the last line of DEL#REASON. Where do you find that "significant violations of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT...should be deleted..." as opposed to edited? Or do you agree that, if the two recommendations (with the rewrite) above are followed, that the articles content need not be deleted? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But then you'd have to prove that each and every entry was SOAPBOX and couldn't be changed into anything non-SOAPBOX. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I really don't. Just as I don't need to go through every single sentence and show that it's exclusively promotional and cannot be rewritten rewritten from a neutral point of view every time when I tag a page with WP:G11. I think that the articles violate a number of our policies while covering a trivial subject that probably has no place being in an encyclopedia to begin with. I also think that I've already offered enough evidence in support of that view. Even if some of the entries are acceptable, asking me to go through all 350 lines one by one is an unreasonable request that only diverts attention from the main problem. — Rankiri (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

WP:INDISCRIMINATE says that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" and then goes on to specifically criticize the tendency to list news events even though they lack "enduring notability". For more detail see WP:NEWSEVENT.
The issue of our SOAPBOX LINKFARM could be solved. But the issue of fundamentally non-notable content cannot. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, as Roy pointed out, "significant violations of ... WP:NOT ... should be deleted." MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not say that. I was quoting from the Rankiri post just above. I was saying: you (Rankiri) believe that "significant violations of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT...should be deleted...". Where is the line of wikilinks that begins with that statement and ends back in WP:DEL? Like my line of reasoning: WP:DEL#REASON -> WP:NOTLINK#1 -> WP:LINKFARM.
However, your preceding point may be valid. Would everybody please look at WP:INDISCRIMINATE#4 and WP:NEWSEVENT so that we all are on the same page? Since NEWSEVENT is a notability guideline, it obviously falls within WP:DEL.
First, your contention is that LoTPm (under whatever name, year and format) is a news event. I disagree. LoTPm is a massive collection of news events, not a single event and so NEWSEVENTS, which deals primarily with individual events, does not seem to apply. If anyone can show me where NEWSEVENTS does apply to collections, I will take another look.
But WP:INDISCRIMINATE#4 (also known as WP:NOTNEWS) says "most newsworthy events [by themselves] do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." In my opinion, even if the sport or celebrity is notable.
So this turns on whether the "blurbs" (summaries of each event, written by Wikipedia editors) and, I guess, the lead, considered either individually or as a whole, make the LoTPp article notable. I don't know how if feel right now but it is a point to be considered. (What I'm really saying is: Can anyone convince me and other editors either way?) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry I mistook your other comment. But I was just pointing that WP:NOT is listed as a deletion criteria.
I would respond further by saying that as a broad trend (Tea Party protests) this is notable, but as a list of individual events, NEWSEVENTS does indeed apply. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting)
No, I do not think that this article violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE (NOTNEWS).

  • NOTNEWS gives examples "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" or "breaking news" that are not similar to the TP protests. Those examples are not determinative but are indicative that the authors of that section had something else in mind, something other than events like the TP events.
  • NOTNEWS also says see also: Wikipedia:Notability (events). Let's start with what WP:NEWSEVENT includes as "Other circumstances", events that are likely not-notable:
    • WP:ROUTINE "such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs", "sports matches, film premieres, press conferences". TP events do not fall into this category.
    • WP:SENSATION "scandal mongering or gossip", "infotainment and churnalism", " frivolous 'silly season' reporting". Nope, not TP events.
    • Criminal acts - nope, not TP.
    • Participants known for one event - "subjects known only in connection with one event". This is the exact opposite of the TP protests, which are known for hundreds of events.
  • So the TP events do not fit into the category of "usually not notable". So let's look at categories that likely are notable:
    • "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect."
    • "Events are also very likely to be notable if they are have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)."
  • When considered as a group - and we are discussing an article about a group of events, not an article about an individual event - this group of events has had lasting effect. It has influenced legislation, influenced elections, and by all accounts will have an effect through the rest of this year and perhaps beyond.
  • The group of events has had national impact, and has been covered in diverse sources.
  • The parent article, Tea Party protests, also Tea Party movement definitely has notability. This "List of" article is a daughter of that article and inherits the parent's notability. The History section of the parent article grew too large and detailed and in accordance with WP:Summary this article was split from the parent article.
  • Does a daughter article inherit notability from a parent article? Consider Early life and career of Barack Obama. That article has notability only because of the notability of the parent subject. The daughter article would never have been written or kept except for the parent article's existence.
  • Like the Early life of Obama article, this article would never have been written or kept except for the existence of its parent article and notability of the parent subject. It should be kept for a similar reason: it documents the early history of a notable subject.
  • These events are the foundation of the Tea Party movement. These events led to what is now called in source after source, the "Tea Party movement".
  • By analogy, these individual events are the bricks of a large building. Any individual brick has little import but as a group they are the foundation of a strong building. You might pull out one or two bricks, but if you pull out enough bricks the building collapses.
  • Any individual event may have little import, but as Happysomeone said "when it happens hundreds of times (with crowds of varying sizes) across the span of a year and change, well, something's "going on"."
  • An article about any single event most likely would fail NOTNEWS, but this is an article about a group of events. The group does meet the Notability guidelines and does not violate WP:IINFO.

Sbowers3 (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • When the protests are considered as a group, they're called Tea Party protests or Tea Party movement. This article instead lists them as individual events. That is where I object. The notability of the broader movement does not lend notability to every single protest event.
  • Getting at your Obama example, summary style doesn't supersede notability requirements. That's fairly unrelated.
  • Wikipedia:Notability (events) has three requirements for coverage: Depth - An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. Duration - The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Diversity of sources - Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable.
  • Very few of the individual protests on our list (if any) can claim to meet these standards. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Sbowers3 is saying that the whole is more than the sum of the parts. That the entire list proves a point that the individual news stories do not: that without significant national organization, the protests which label themselves as Tea Party have "swept the country"; that is, on practically any weekend you will find many TP protest all over the US. Sbowers3, have I explained your views correctly? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MBM, do I understand you correctly? You are saying that, if Tea Party protests had a statement that "The protests which label themselves as Tea Party have "swept the country" without significant national organization.[1][2][3]...[812][813]" then that would be OK with you, although you might argue the citations are too much. But it's not OK to have a series of paragraphs in the form:

On September 1st there were three protests: In Bemidji, Minnesota, hundreds gathered for Freedom Fest.[1] In Jacksonville, Florida, about 500 attended a Tea Party town hall on health care reform.[2] In Valdosta, California, about 200 protested universal health care.[3]
On September 2nd, etc. ?

My problem is that, even if you accept the proposition that a blurbed source list is as good as prose with inline citations, we don't have the original statement (that is, "The protests which label themselves...") anywhere in LoTPp9/10 to feed off of.

Let me phrase it a slightly different way. Let's say you had the statement "The protests which label themselves as Tea Party have "swept the country" without significant national organization.[1][2][3]...[812][813]" and let's further assume that none of the 813 sources say that. You're trying to prove your thesis by massive examples.

Then, IMO, that statement, with all of its citations, is a WP:SYN-violation and should be removed. If that removal leaves the article effectively empty then the article should be deleted.

So even if we include something like that sentence in the lead (for example, "The protests in this chronological list [or history or whatever] have swept the country without significant national organization.") followed by monthly sections in prose format, then I personally would say that that lead sentence is a violation of original synthesis and, since there's no reasonable chance for improvement, the article should be deleted.

Sbowers3, you are saying that the blurbs (my word) answer the Who, What, When questions for each, individual event. But the individual blurbs do not and cannot apply to other events, correct? Then it seems to me that one event, say the Feb 10th protest in Ft Myers or the June 12th event in Houston, should be of sufficient notability on its own to allow an article to be written about that event itself.

Maybe that's the solution. Someone could write stub articles on each of the hundreds of events and then combine those articles in a stand-alone list. But I thought we agreed that most of the events weren't notable by themselves.

I'm at a loss. Sbowers3, could you explain your reasoning? What is the overall statement that combines these events into a meaningful whole? Could that statement be included in the lead without orig-syn? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Notability (events) applies to an article as a whole, not to each individual event in an article. Consider the April 3 Feature Article, Jay Pritzker Pavilion. It mentions an event, that the pavilion opened officially on July 16, 2004. That individual event is not notable. An article titled Opening of the Pritzker Pavilion should be deleted. From that same FA here are two more events: the architect accepted the design commission in April 1999; and the pavilion was constructed between June 1999 and July 2004. Each of those individual events is non-notable. What matters is that the topic of the article is notable, not that each individual event be notable.
The topic of our "List of ..." article is the Tea Party protests and that topic is notable. It does not matter whether each individual event is notable.
Here is another way to look at it. Suppose that the List articles were merged back into the TPp article. Could the parent article then be deleted because each individual protest was not notable? Of course not - the topic, i.e. the protests as a group, is notable even if each individual protest is not notable. Could the notability guideline be used to delete each individual event listed in the main TPp article? No, because the notability requirement applies to the article as a whole, not to each individual statement within the article. Could notability be cited to delete the History section of the parent article because no individual event is notable? Again, no.
When we then take a notable article, and split out a section into a daughter article, that section does not suddenly violate the notability guideline. Whether a section is in a parent article, or split into a daughter article, the content is equally valid.
If these List articles were merged back into the main article, the content would be valid in terms of notability because the topic is notable. If the content is split out to a daughter article, the topic is still notable. The sub-article does not violate NOTNEWS.
Sbowers3 (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you if the article were treating the protests "as a whole" - but it's not; it's listing them as individual events. To see the protests treated as a whole, see Tea Party protests.
If this article were merged into the TPP article it would not last there because people would see it as WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, applying Summary Style does not negate the requirement of notability. You can't split off a List of slogans used at Tea Party protests, for example, because it's just not that important. A few examples in the main article is all that's needed.
And that is what we should do here - copy over a few examples that are especially important or representative, and get rid of the remainder that lacks notability. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A list of events

I think I have been misreading you and we have been talking to cross-purposes. Immediately above, you wrote "listing them as individual events". Earlier, you similarly wrote "a list of individual events" and "This article instead lists them as individual events."

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists does state that "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia (which in turn requires list members to meet the appropriate notability criteria), but the existence of an article is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example List of minor characters in Dilbert."

You are correct that the List of Tea Party protests, 2009 article does not meet the letter of that style guideline. Each of the entries in our list should meet the Notability (events) criteria. But as a guideline, it is not binding: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Two exceptions I quickly found are List of glaciers in Africa and List of ethnic slurs. No doubt there are hundreds of other articles that do not meet the guideline.

Nevertheless, to avoid confusion with conventional "List of" articles, we have already talked about renaming this article to (e.g.) "Concise history Timeline of Tea Party protests, 2009" and perhaps make it more "prosey" and less "listy". As a "history of" article rather than a "List of" article, there is clearly no requirement that each statement have notability on its own.

Does this satisfy your notability objection? Sbowers3 (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you look at a random sampling of "Timeline of" articles (Timeline of New Zealand's links with Antarctica, Timeline of United States history (1970–1989), Timeline of World War II (1942), Timeline of the BBC, Timeline of vaccines, Timeline of Crayola, etc., etc., etc.), very few cite any sources at all. Are we supposed to delete LoTPp just because it has sources? Or are you saying that most of the hundreds or thousands of "Timeline" articles should also be deleted?
One Timeline article that does have sources is Timeline of U2. It gives inline citations for every event, just like List/Timeline of TPp. As a matter of fact, Timeline of U2 looks remarkably similar to ToTPp, except that U2 starts much earlier. I just found another one: Timeline of AIDS. Please look at these two articles and tell us why you think that ToTPp should be deleted if these two are not.
In the meantime, I suggest that we stop calling the articles List of Tea Party protests, 2009 (and 2010) and start calling them Timeline of Tea Party protests, 2009/2010. These are not stand-alone lists and the policy and guidelines for stand-alone lists do not apply. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A timeline or history article would be better...
I still support removal of the events which are non-notable based on WP:Weight. The existing source summaries need to go away for certain. But if a timeline were coordinated with the history sections of TPP & TPM, it could work. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Tea Party protests, 2009: An Experiment

As a experiment, I copied List of Tea Party protests, 2009 to a user subpage here. Then I edited the February section of that subpage to format it like the Timeline of U2 article. This took me about 10 minutes to do the copy and another 10 minutes to reformat the text of February, giving us 15 inline citations.

Can anyone tell me any relevant difference between Timeline of U2 and User:RoyGoldsmith/Timeline of Tea Party protests, 2009, assuming that all sections in the latter article were formatted the same way as February? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useful experiment - but remember WP:Other stuff exists. Nonetheless, I think there is a solid basis for keeping the article and renaming it (them) to Timeline of ... (but I would omit the bold on the dates and places). Another example is Timeline of solar cells. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

Here's my proposal if we want to fix this article. The fixes are more than just cosmetic:

1. Reformat the whole list.

2. Carefully read through the event summaries:

  • The events that aren't sufficiently notable get removed. (what should our standard be?)
  • The events that are notable get consolidated where possible. (ex. "Three protests were held in Louisiana, North Dakota, and New Hampshire.[1][2][3]")
  • Any text suggesting a POV gets removed.

3. Read through TPP and TPM and add all significant events to the timeline.

I'll continue to support deletion until we complete step 2. Also, I would suggest a title Timeline of the Tea Party movement to give a less restricted scope. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what at least one problem is. (God, that's an awfully negative statement. :) If you consider the articles under discussion (I can't think of a better name right now) to be a Timeline of the Tea Party movement then, of course, the notability to the movement is very important and the entries should be culled way down. But, if you consider the same articles as Timeline of [no "the"] Tea Party protests then we really don't have to cull them at all because they're all (presumably) protests. (Any entry not a protest should be removed after the proper tagged notice.) We should add to the appropriate article under discussion, not subtract from it. Like I think you are saying in point 3.
As for point 2-3 (Any text suggesting a POV gets removed), I disagree. Any text suggesting a POV gets changed to something less POV. Right? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, tomorrow is the last official day for comments. Is there anyone else who wants to share their views? Should we contact sparkie and SaltyBoat and Nothingofwater and Rankiri? Or should we just assume they've gotten bored? Has the discussion pared down to just us three? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten bored, but I don't have time for the extended conversations. I still favor deletion of these two "lists of..." articles. There might be a tiny amount of information in these articles that could be salvaged and moved to the Tea Party protests article, but it is negligible. As to the "timeline" article, I don't see any coverage of "timeline of Tea Party protests" in the reliable sourcing so creation of such an article here would be synthesis, and disallowed per No Original Research policy here. It probably could find a home in some other Wikimedia project, but wouldn't fit here in this encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that interpretation of WP:OR. I'm still a keep, but closely aligned to MakeBelieveMonster. I'd like to see some progress before the discussion on deletion is closed — as sort of a good faith effort, if you will.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I don't see any reliable sourcing that paints a picture of a "timeline of Tea Party protests". Editor's here should not be connecting the dots of the individual events into a timeline because that act of connecting the dots amounts to "synthesis of published material" that we don't see "clearly advanced by the sources". Or, perhaps I have missed it; where is there an existing timeline like this seen anywhere? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted this debate for another round so that this interesting and enlightening discussion may continue along the lines of Moving Forward--Mike Cline (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

To continue our discussion:

SaltyBoatr, I had the same confusion two month ago. I thought that if A implies B wasn’t stated explicitly by some source, we couldn’t draw the inference ourselves. But, according to the folks who maintain WP:OR, the rules aren’t quite that strict. See this discussion for details.

Basically I was asking if selecting sources, even by hidden criteria (which is all you object to in the articles under discussion, right?), was a proper function of an editor. I was leaning strongly towards no but consensus of the people interested in WP:OR said otherwise. We are allowed and encouraged to "connect the dots".

Now I know that you can reject that interpretation but I just thought I’d bring it up because I was asking the same questions. Correct me if I’m wrong but are you saying the we, as editors, are not allowed to conclude that date A occurs before or after date B, unless we find some RS that says that explicitly? I thought that we were permitted use of basic arithmetic, including the inequality "A < B". --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree here. According to my reading of the policy, connecting the dots amounts to synthesis to advance a hypothesis, in this case that these series of events are cohesive, "a timeline". They may indeed be cohesive, but we can't synthesize that conclusion ourselves, we need to find it in reliable sourcing (and it doesn't appear to exist there, feel free to point to the sourcing if I have missed it). That said, I think that Tea Party protests and Tea Party movement cover this topic (though they too suffer from to much WP:SYN). SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SallyBoatr, "Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research." Anytime we edit any article we are arranging facts in some order according to our editorial judgment. Arranging in chronological order is simply a mechanical way of arranging facts.There are some 27,000 "Timeline of ..." articles in Wikipedia (though many are just redirects). RoyGoldsmith listed a few of them: Timeline of New Zealand's links with Antarctica, Timeline of United States history (1970–1989), Timeline of World War II (1942), Timeline of the BBC, Timeline of vaccines, Timeline of Crayola, Timeline of U2, and I mentioned Timeline of solar cells. If you look at some of those you will see that what we propose is entirely consistent with many other articles. We need not find RS that report "timeline of tea party protests"; all we are doing is taking verifiable facts from RS and arranging them in a particular order - and that is entirely consistent with policy. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A listing of past – present or future Tea Party (protests/rallies) is not encyclopedic material, unless a particular rally or protest becomes notable within its own right. Do we list every potential rally or protest that may happen? Do we include the situations where only a handful shows up? What about a scenario where we have ten (10) people discussing the Tea Part, do we list that? Do we strike the proposed events, if they do not happen, but were listed on the page? And the major question “…what purpose does it serve”? The “Tea Party” currently has a well written – reliable – verifiable piece on Wikipedia. The article contain an external link to the party’s official site, where a listing of past – present – and future rallies have – are or will be held. I believe it is the responsibility of the “Tea Party” to keep the information current with regards to these events, and not Wikipedia. Remember, we only state the Notable facts, not every small and irrelevant piece of information that may or may not cross editors’ eyes. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 21:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shoessss, you bring up an interesting point. How do we define a 'Tea Party protest'? People have been protesting higher taxes, government policy, etc since time out of mind. It's an American tradition. If a group of people show up at the state capitol building, protesting taxes or whatever - Does that make them 'tea-partiers'? Can we attribute all the events in this article as bona-fide Tea Parties? When the movement itself is (by definition) grassroots, and without any centralized leadership? There's no authorative source to go and find out which events are genuine tea parties, and which are simply tax protests. How many people have to be waving tea-bags for something to be a tea-party? One? Ten? Some of them? All of them? 51% of them? Are tea-bags required? Even if this list is eventually deemed keep-able, how do we know that the items on the list even belong? This is the problem inherent to this sort of short-term / pop-culture events where facts are reported or ignored according to what will sell papers. Nothingofwater (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always use the Israeli Jewish test: "If a man calls himself a Jew, then he's a Jew". Or in this case: "If a reliable source calls an event a Tea Party protest, then it's a Tea Party protest". By this test, the first TPp's happened on Feb. 27th, 2009. Carender, Rakovich, Limbaugh and Ron Paul are part of the background but they are not true TPp's. Santelli's rant is a special case: he was Tea Party but he wasn't a protest. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward, I would like to start with List of Tea Party protests, 2010 because it is considerably smaller than the 2009 article (about one-third the size). Once we have a satisfactory conclusion, I propose that we merge the two articles into a single Timeline of Tea Party protests. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, even if we keep this article in some form, it would be a timeline and won't use the current title. (And yes, timelines can meet Wikipedia standards - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Tea_Party_protests,_2009#A_list_of_events.) So is there a consensus to delete the current articles and move the content to someone's namespace for reworking? There seems to be agreement that the current article is unacceptable... MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, if an admin Deletes the current articles, first copy-and-pasting the articles' contents and talk pages (including any archives) somewhere else, we will still loose all the history for both articles. Even if we move one article and transfer the other via c&p, we still loose one history. Is that right or is there some way around this?
Second (and my real point), I'm not quite certain what you're talking about actually doing. In my mind, it comes down to: what changes to the two articles have to be made in order to get them to a minimally-acceptable state, from which they can be improved?
For example, if we were to move/rename the current articles to "Timeline of Tea Party protests[either , 2009 or , 2010]" in main article namespace and then modify all the contents in a way similar to what I did with my experiment, wouldn't that meet the "minimally-acceptable" criteria? Since it would take less than a day for one editor to modify all of the contents in both articles to something like my experiment, I don't see what is wrong with this.
MBM, you seem to have a higher goal than just reaching a minimally acceptable state. If you do, won't you share your method of achieving such a goal with us? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To reach a minimum acceptable state will take more that reformatting. (See my "moving forward" plan.) I could imagine a version of this article that's a useful, condensed history of the Tea Party movement... but as it currently stands, here are the key reasons for deletion that we would need to fix:
  • WP:Linkfarming - solve with reformatting
  • WP:Notability (as list items) and WP:Weight (as timeline items) - 'cause nobody cares about a 20 person protest
  • WP:NPOV - "85 patriots stood united in opposition to socialized Obamacare"
I expect this would take more than a day. And if it makes it to that point, I would be interested in adding other key events to the timeline. But of course, I'm just one editor and the other votes (rough majority to delete) should be heard. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I created an example revision for October.) MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would at least preserve some of the 20-person protests. It's worthwhile to note that even small groups of people came together, self-identifying themselves as "Tea Party protests". --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think covering a 20 person protest would give "weight appropriate to its significance." Of course this is where things become subjective and arbitrary, but in the context of a nationwide movement a 20 person protest is minuscule. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major series of events. I would object to making an article for each of them under NOT NEWS, for only a few will be individually notable, but as a series they are. It is obvious that the description of a protest will include a statement bout what the protesters say they are protesting about, and giving it as they say it is not a NPOV violation. for a NPOV discussion of the actual issues, one links to the articles on the issues. for a NPOV discussion of the Tea Party phenomenon as a whole, there is the general article on the series. This is part of the historical record, for better or worse, and there is no point in pretending it does not exist, or that the cumulative effect is part of the overall significance. I see no need to rename. "List of" is descriptive enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, if this "series" is notable, where do we see reliable sourcing talking about the "series"? We don't. Instead, editors here want to create this "series". That amounts to original research. SaltyBoatr (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Myself, I see a few million on Google.[9] Not all will be relevant, but taking the most relevant reliable source from the fist page of hits, I find the Huffington Post. Taking their own web sites, I see dozens like [10], [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=91398].
I also apply a certain degree of general editing sense. Editors here assemble facts to make articles. All articles in Wikipedia are made in that fashion, or at least ought to be. It is not OR to organize material on a list. If we did not assemble our material from such sources, and organize it, then we would be doing OR. The first step in providing information to people is to provide them with a list of facts. If we have a number of similar events, we make a general article about them, and incorporate a list of them, If the material is too large for one article, we separate out the list. It seems to me just a question of arranging the material, so I am rather puzzled about the opposition to this article. WP NOT OSTRICH-- as if not making a list would deny their significance. DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Typically I would agree with you. In fact, I support most lists as they pertain to a List of United States cities by population or a List of sovereign states or in fact a List of Star Wars characters. However, these lists provide additional information that is informative – supported by third party, reliable source – and is non-promotional information that compliments the main articles. On the other hand, a list of “List of Tea Party protests, 2009” has no added value, either to the main article or notable in and of itself. In other words, what purpose does it serve, other than a possible promotional value, which by Wikipedia policy, is not allowed. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 18:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But what deletion policy do you say we're against? If we expand the in-article descriptions of the individual sources, someone on this page says we're violating WP:SYN or WP:NPOV or both. If we try to reduce the individual descriptions then we're guilty of not being encyclopedic enough and violating WP:NOTE and/or WP:NPOV again. What's an article to do? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Sorry to say, my point exactly. There is no need for this article. Hence, my delete !vote. As I stated above, I am in support of most lists that provide informative information that would be cumbersome if included in the main article, here on Wikipedia. This list serves no purpose. It would be similar to maintaining a list of all Republican or Democratic rallies here in the USA or providing a list of rallies hosted by the Labor Party orConservative Party in the U.K. What purpose does it serve. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specific criteria:
MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MBM, you said above (just before my outdent) "I created an example revision for October." Where would I find this example? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List_of_Tea_Party_protests,_2009#October It's not a perfect solution, but it helps reduce the weight on individual events and describes things in a neutral way. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we move the discussion of the new format to the talk page here. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - God forgive the admin that closes this mess... notwithstanding the ridiculousness above, there's easily enough to cover this in an individual article. That article, however, will need especially close coverage to prevent NPOV issues. Shadowjams (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per arguments already eloquently stated by Shadowjams and Sbowers. Notability is obvious. "Other stuff doesn't exist" is spurious, and it's all reliably sourced. I can't say that I would have put it together, but it passes muster. Rapier (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Tea_Party_protests,_2009&oldid=1086075064"
🔥 Top keywords: Main PageSpecial:SearchPage 3Wikipedia:Featured picturesHouse of the DragonUEFA Euro 2024Bryson DeChambeauJuneteenthInside Out 2Eid al-AdhaCleopatraDeaths in 2024Merrily We Roll Along (musical)Jonathan GroffJude Bellingham.xxx77th Tony AwardsBridgertonGary PlauchéKylian MbappéDaniel RadcliffeUEFA European Championship2024 ICC Men's T20 World CupUnit 731The Boys (TV series)Rory McIlroyN'Golo KantéUEFA Euro 2020YouTubeRomelu LukakuOpinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general electionThe Boys season 4Romania national football teamNicola CoughlanStereophonic (play)Gene WilderErin DarkeAntoine GriezmannProject 2025