Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founding Fathers of the United States

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 per WP:SNOW. Clearly there's consensus against deletion here; editors are welcome to continue the discussion on the talk page if there are still issues that need to be addressed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Founding Fathers of the United States[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete WP:NPOV, a 1910s neologism, with too much unrelated content. Most of the content duplicates that found elsewhere in more targeted articles, such as Signing of the United States Declaration of Independence and Signing of the United States Constitution. At the very least, it should be renamed Founders of the United States, and most of its content moved to the respective main articles with per section main article hatnotes.

This term "Founding Fathers" was explicitly rejected by actual founders of the US, such as Adams and Jefferson. It was promulgated in the early 20th century by Harding as a counter to Women's suffrage, and resurrected 60 years later by Reagan who was against the Equal Rights Amendment. This dog whistle has mostly been used as an ultra-conservative or reactionary gloss.

This article has become a target of White Christian Nationalist sentiment demanding inclusion of religions of various such founders. The article has long been a target of persistent vandalism and sockpuppetry, and repeatedly been protected.

Its presence is currently being used to argue for the reinstatement of long-deleted categories. In 2007, Category:Founding Fathers of the United States was deleted. Its subcategories Category:Signers of the United States Declaration of Independence and Category:Signers of the United States Constitution were retained. The inclusion criteria are overly broad and allow for too much of a gray area for the interpretation of who was a "leader" during the American Revolution. Several other categories already specify exactly what these people did to contribute to the foundation of the United States....

This article has been further expanded by Additional Founding Fathers. My own distant relative Ethan Allen is the first such listed alphabetically. At no time in his lifetime nor his death was he termed a founding father.

Moreover, the article has been expanded with Founding Mothers. That speaks to the need for renaming to Founders.

Finally, the article is replete with a recapitulation of the entire American Revolution, the demographics, and other material far better suited to specific main articles.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I'm not reading all of that, but 'founding fathers' is a common American term and if it's been protected against extremist vandalism the issues involving that have been ushered out. Deletion isn't happening, and please discuss your issues with this page on its talk page. Nate • (chatter) 16:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the phrase may be sexist by current standards, it is a notable topic nonetheless. No less than Britannica has an article on this precise subject (here), so it is hard to argue this is not encyclopedic. (As for the assertion that non-founders have incorrectly been included, that is an editing issue that can be taken up on the article talk page.) Cbl62 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with most of what you say, but it should also be said that referring to a body of men as Founding Fathers is not "sexist", it's a reflection on the truth. Not everyone is in line with "current standards", in spite of the distortions the media tries to feed us.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be said that there is no section entitled Founding Mothers as was claimed in the opening statement above.. While there is a sub-section entitled Women it is under the general heading of Additional Founding Fathers, some of whom are questionable as to whether they were actual founders .i.e.Those who play actual roles in conceiving, drafting, debating and signing the documents outlining the foundation, independence, nationhood, and its governing laws and precepts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No valid rationale for deletion has been given, and the nomination is borderline WP:POINTy. This is obviously a notable topic, with coverage in an immense number of reliable academic sources. NPOV, disruption, and name concerns should all be handled article-side, as that is not the purpose of AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly split -- Much of this article is a list of people (all with bio-articles) who are considered to be founders. Mixed up with this is a series of sections on the institutional development of USA prior to the adoption of the Constitution, which I am sure we must have done better elsewhere. The founders were mostly men, but if it is desired to enable then women not to be out of place, it might become Founders of the United States (which redirects to this article). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- William Allen Simpson: Many of your criticisms are well taken. Nonetheless, I believe the following:

The "neologism" (founding fathers) while only a century old is nonetheless now part of the language, how a significant number of people thinks of and refers to our "progenitors".
The article on average garners over 1 million page views annually. During the first year of the pandemic, 2020, the number of visits doubled (2,371,782), attracting more readers than the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, and any other related topic that year except the Revolutionary War (2,683,128). So the subject as a separate matter is of extremely high interest.
Redundancies are common to articles on subjects of an expansive nature, such as the American Revolution and Civil War, where certain sub-topics warrant separate focus. While I agree the article should be shortened to eliminate unnecessary repetition, that's probably true of every sub-topic article.
The inclusion criteria has been based on whether multiple WP:RS's specifically assign the term to someone, and not marginally, for example, as a "forgotten founding father". While I believe you're correct about Ethan Allen, I have reviewed at least 95% of the candidates to assure this. That's an easy matter, however, since most founding fathers are signers (or delegates) and therefore, are widely recognized.
"Founding Mother" developed in response to the sexism of the general term though I think it's a somewhat dubious construct and not the "prevailing view". Yet a fair number of reliable sources have taken up the cause, and this article seems like the appropriate place to address this. Without changing its title.
As for target of White Christian Nationalist sentiment demanding inclusion of religions of various such founders. The article has long been a target of persistent vandalism..., I don't think that's reason to delete an article and may be more a sign of this one's importance. In any case, I've been editing and watching the article intensively for more than a year and have seen very few problems along these lines (probably because of its protected status).

You've diligently covered the lay of the land, so to speak, but I don't see much point in addressing every issue you've raised. IMO, I doubt this effort will gain traction, but see nothing wrong with determining whether that's the case. Allreet (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a common and notable term. Also, the purported sexism is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED. CoolJamesII (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. While I think there are some copy edits that need to be made that can make the prose more inclusive, that should be discussed on the talk page, rather that at AFD. --Enos733 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Propose a page move or removal of offending sections, but there's no basis to just delete the article on a widely used term and grouping of historical people. Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - As is. If there is an issue with any part of this article, then edit it. But Americans are taught in school that these are the "founding fathers" who helped create the new nation and its basic rules of law. Political speeches and news items often refer to the "founding fathers". If there's a problem with the wording "Founding Fathers", then the problem is not in this article. — Maile (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2023 (UT
Keep This is clearly a notable topic. Several books have been published about this topic. A phrase that has been widely used for 110 years is no longer a neologism. Cullen328 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Rather than delete, the page is near feature status. It's a wonderful page, one of the best crafted, collaborated on, multi-argued, and edited pages I've read or experienced on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although good point in the nom about Ethan Allen. Even though there are two good references naming him as a Founding Father, have moved his entry so he is no longer on the Founders list. The nominator is lucky to have such a proud family heritage. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty sure I created this page in—checks page history—2004, at which time it entirely was unsourced bullshit. (It was so hard adding citations back then guys!!) Anyway, it looks like team Americapedia has done fine work here and I'm biased but I think it should stay. jengod (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It's sort of amazing that this proposed deletion was even allowed to take place. Ridiculous. Yes, there is much about the Revolution in the article -- always in context with the role the Founders played. This is not simply a list of Founding Fathers.-- All the criticisms are highly opinionated, with very little real substance to back them up. -- Esp the part about the term Fathers. Though a couple of women like Abigail Adams lent their advice, all the actual Founders were men --i.e. those who drafted, debated and signed founding documents and or played major roles in the war. If this doesn't sit well with the gender denial crowd that is unfortunate. User Jengod did well to give the article its appropriate name. She has my thanks. - Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2023 (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.