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 Cheers. I'^mperator 13:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Tea Party protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article reads like an essay written by a 4th grader. "The Ides of March saw the next rally as Cincinatti voiced it's unhappiness with the national government's programs." "The first reported college protest occurred in colonial fashion just 9 days later on April 11th at The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia." We are not looking for "style points" and even if we were, this is terrible. The essay is written horribly, the timeline is constructed horribly, consisting mainly of prose. Choosing which dates to include without relying on WP:RS which presents the entire history is verging on WP:NOR and WP:SYN since there are hundreds of events that could be included in the "timeline", which is actually a prose. This article is basically junk and needs to be merged into the main Teabag Party article, where the information can be contained nicely. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nomination is self-contradictory, since it calls for merger, not deletion. The article is organized and sourced, all of the nominator's complaints are grounds for improvement not deletion or merger. Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this article sucks and needs a major overhaul; however, merging its content into Tea Party protests will leave that article "overburdened" and cluttered. Notability is somewhat difficult to ascertain, because individual protests aren't notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - topic notable and worthy of inclusion. Article is well sourced; needs work but not deletion. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Scjessey as the most effective way to keep trivia out of the main article. JamesMLane t c 11:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a series of news stories that will have no significant impact upon the course of human events. WP:NOTNEWS -Atmoz (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrictramp, does that inclusion change the method of the process or anything like that? (Asking since I know little about the deletion schemes). The Squicks (talk) 00:16, 7 May 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.