The result was keep. Article needs additional work and sources, however the main consensus was to keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (chatter) 19:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfeasibly broad list with unclear inclusion criteria. Just about every politician in the modern-day Republican Party, including its 4000 state legislators, would identify with the Tea Party and/or has been identified as belonging to it. I don't think it's possible to narrow down the inclusion criteria (e.g. by cutting out state legislative-level politicians or non-officeholders, or by only including those who've publicly identified with the Tea Party) without falling foul of WP:OR. – hysteria18 (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast
While almost all Republicans would like to brand themselves as 'Tea Party politicians' there is a distinction between those who make the claim and those who are recognized by legitimate Tea Party adherents. Anna Little was a small town mayor with fringe ideas who defeated a millionaire newspaper publisher, whose husband is a Wall Street tycoon. Christine O'Donnell defeated nine-term U.S. Representative and former governor Michael Castle in Delaware's September 2010 Republican primary for the U.S. Senate.
These two examples show that there are anti-establishment candidates whose views are not consistent with the mainstream Republican Party. Mitt Romney is going tohave a hard time gaining support from the Tea Party movement, once his record is subjected to broader scrutiny. Tea Party members want religious intervention in political and governmental affairs. Unlike libertarian Republicans, who are virtually anarchists that desire an end to government, Tea Party people want government services such as Medicare and Social Security but they fear these programs are threatened by financial instability.
Most of all, the Tea Party is comprised of angry Americans who want accountability for the Wall Street bailouts that followed the mortgage crisis. While the group has been hijacked by GOP manipulators, a true distinction lies in what real adherents want and what their political masters desire. Ultimately, this conflict has potential for eruption.
Arguing that the list is unfeasibly broad is like saying one cannot distinguish between Democrats who are liberal and those who are moderate. It makes more sense to develop clear inclusion criteria than to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Sure, it needs work. I say improve it, but keep it. Njdemocrat (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]