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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies that halted U.S. political contributions in January 2021[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

List of companies that halted U.S. political contributions in January 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a vague list, with the lead section intentionally contributing to the vagueness. Some listed companies halted contribution because of politicians objecting to certifying the vote count (even though that is specifically allowed as part of the process), while other companies did so because of the US Capitol event. By leaving the criteria vague, it invites bias and invites editors to use this page to connect one political party to the Capitol event. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Selection criteria... should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Is a "list of companies that halted U.S. political contributions in January 2021" open to several meanings? No, either a company halted donations or did not halt donations. That all of them did not halt donations to the same extent does not change the fact that "Did this company halt political donations in January 2021?" is a yes/no question. Is it subjective? Again, no, for the same reason. Is it supported by reliable sources? Yes, every entry on the list is sourced. As the list covers actions taken in a specific time period that has now passed, the possibility that future entries to the list will change the answers to those questions is not a concern. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I think would it be more appropriate to include some comments on companies halting donations to the article Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack and naming a few prominent examples there instead of having this list. Companies halting donations is significant, but is a complete list really necessary? I don't think that in the long term it will matter which exact companies pulled their support, and these corporate reactions seems like a minor detail in the scope of the attack and even its aftermath, not enough for a stand-alone list. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Egsan Bacon's explanation of WP:LISTCRITERIA – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The criteria of the list is very specific, so I'm not sure that the primary claim here applies. Additionally, the last sentence concerns me, as the assessment on the 'Capitol event' is pretty much clear, given the introductory paragraphs of the 2021 United States Capitol attack article and their corresponding references in the article body. Given that, I'm not sure what concern is being alluded to here. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 20:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

• Keep Everything is referenced, and its a valid topic that news media has given significant coverage of. Dream Focus 21:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Egsan Bacon. (Out of pragmatic concerns, seeing that a merge will not come about, and wanting to point out that my underlying rationale is still essentially a "Keep" rationale I strike my previous comment.) Merge with Sedition Caucus. The real subject of this article is the corporate/sponsor reaction to the Sedition Caucus. Both article are on the same subject, with this list presenting merely a facet of the core subject, and the substantive article lacking this (certainly notable) facet. The list would be an excellent compliment to the Sedition Caucus article, but it doesn't work that great as a separate article. Unlike the nominator who says there is vagueness in the criteria, I think that the list is sufficiently clear in that it includes companies /that/ announced suspension of donations to legislators and/or executive branch members who were challenging the vote certification. I invite the Keep advocates to consider this perspective. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is what a merge would look like: rev — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sedition Caucus appears to be an attack page, so I have nominated it for deletion as well, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedition Caucus. 03:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

• Keep. I don't think the merger proposal reads naturally -- it's unwieldy enough as a list to warrant its own page -- and I concur with the opinion that this list is appropriate for the wiki, but I do think it needs a bit of cleanup / updates. Some of the companies listed have vowed to permanently discontinue political donations; other companies only paused their donations, or announced their suspension lifted, and have resumed throwing money at politicians. Someone might need to keep an eye on that. RexSueciae (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge While on the surface, it may appear to pass WP:LISTCRITERIA, the selection criteria is far from unambiguous. How long a pause is sufficient? Did a company have to pause in the week after January 6 to be on the list? Did a company PAC have to stop all donations or just to certain members of Congress? While the page describes itself as dynamic, are companies still making decisions in the aftermath of January 6? A better way is to use prose with examples of some companies that did pause donations in the "aftermath" section and provide a couple of links to sources that did provide a (partial) list. --Enos733 (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My preferred merge target is Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Political donors. --Enos733 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merge with the (parent) aftermath article, because the aftermath article covers a great number of notable topics and requires WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It can't accommodate either this list or an expanded passage on the companies. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The justifications for keeping the list (as seen in this discussion) are all over the place. It is far from a complete list, there are no parameters describing how a company PAC makes it onto (or off) the list as there is no distinguishing between limited suspension to certain members of Congress, full pauses, and stopping political donations altogether. Just being referenced is not a reason to keep a list. The broader point can be quickly summarized in one or two paragraphs with some example companies mentioned in the prose, the number of company PACs who announced a pause in donations, and perhaps a quote or two. Also see WP:10YT. --Enos733 (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (note: alr. !voted) on Keep/Merge specifically: Keep would be fine, Merge horizontally with sedition caucus would also be fine, but Merge upward with aftermath would be positively terrible. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- as I noted above, given the choice between "keep" or "merge" my preference would be to keep. RexSueciae (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep important subject, valued by reliable sources. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the creator of this List, I believe it brings important historical value, and with 8,000 pageviews thus far, I must not be alone in that belief. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As it meets list criteria. Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2021 (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.