Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IRS Tea Party investigation

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; bad faith nomination. Shii (tock) 23:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRS Tea Party investigation[edit]

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

Dubious notability; just another random alleged 'political scandal' driven by blogs. Herp Derp (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Bad faith nomination. Roodog2k (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herp Derp (talk • contribs) 13 May 2013

Comment Nominator has a history of nominating pages concerning notable right-wing subject matter.Roodog2k (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks. Judge the article and AFD on it's merits. You are a faceless cog. I am a faceless cog. We are irrelevant. All that matters is the integrity of the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herp Derp (talk • contribs) 13 May 2013

Strong keep Bad faith nomination. This is national news, covered by every major network, NYT, Washington Post, etc. TJIC (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete an page that has had extensive media coverage by respectable sources? XOttawahitech (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a significant news story. It has had tons of coverage in major news sources. Whether it is a tempest in a teakettle, as the nominator alleges, is unfortunately not particularly relevant - the scandal itself will be notable, dragging the original IRS acts to notability along the way. (We may need two articles, depending on where this goes). -- stillnotelf is invisible 18:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject of this AfD has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject clearly passes WP:GNG.

The only debatable question is does this article require a standalone article, or can it be merged and redirected to the Tea Party movement article? Or is it an event and as such will this article received continued coverage as required for an event to be considered notable (if it is an event then it is too soon to tell if that is the case, if it is not an event then GNG clearly applies)?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is big, and getting bigger. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article needs work and needs to remain neutral, but this topic has significant coverage and the The House Ways and Means Committee plans to hold a more hearings.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a news site. There is a news story in this, but a Wikipedia article? I'm not seeing anything that points to lasting notability at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - it appears to be more than just "Tea Party," involving a number of organizations, most of which (but not all) are politically conservative. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Huge story, massive media coverage, highly notable. Congressional investigation will start soon. Hello32020 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2013 (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.