Talk:Boston Tea Party (US Political Party)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason offered for the proposed deletion of this page is that "it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, etc. that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject."

I have read the Wikipedia articles on the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party and the Constitution Party, and in none of those articles do I find any "[assertion of] the importance or significance of the subject," other than by inference from the factual claims about the parties referred to.

The Boston Tea Party is less than two weeks old. It will not hold its organizational convention for another month. However, there is an inferred importance already stated in the article: The importance of a new party arising from dispute within an existing party whose own importance may be inferred from the fact that its Wikipedia article has been in place, and allowed to remain so, for some time.

The reason that there are not more explicit assertions of the importance of the Boston Tea Party are two-fold:

First, It is very new, and thus there's not a lot of history to record yet.

Secondly, I recognize that my own viewpoint on the Boston Tea Party, as its founder, is very subjective, and I do not wish to unintentionally abuse Wikipedia as a promotional tool by mentioning such factoids as:

• The fact that the Boston Tea Party already has 150+ members in less than two weeks, which according to Wikipedia is more than the Libertarian Party had after nearly a year in existence and following its first presidential campaign.

• The fact that the Boston Tea Party may be the first political party to hold a convention online (I've found references to something called the American Disability Party having planned to do so in 2000, but I've not been able to find any evidence that said convention ever actually occurred).

• The fact that the Boston Tea Party already has at least one appointed public official (myself -- I am a federal Selective Service Administration official) affiliated with it.

I am fully aware of my own subjectivity. I am making every effort to avoid abusing Wikipedia as a promotional tool. For that reason, I abstained from making claims in the article which might reasonably (and correctly or incorrectly) construed as hyperbole.

Nonetheless, I have two responsibilities to discharge:

One is to Wikipedia. I have written and edited articles on this site before, and I am fully on-board with the project's mission to become an exhaustive, informative information source. The creation/existence of a political party is information which Wikipedia's readers deserve to have at their disposal. Further development of that party will likewise constitute such data.

The other is to the Boston Tea Party. As a new organization, I want it to immediately begin compiling a reasonably comprehensive and factually correct historical record of itself, and Wikipedia is one of many places (but in my opinion the best) for such a record to reside.

Can you add media mentions, or some other evidence suggesting that external entities think the Boston Tea Party is interesting? Thanks. --Anirvan 18:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template confusion

The "hangon" template says that the author should "remove" it once he's written his explanation as to why the article should not be deleted (which I've done). However, I am not sure if I'm supposed to delete both the "hangon" and "deletion" templates, or just one, so I'll leave that to the editors following this process to correctly decide.

Removed. Please remember to sign comments on talk pages with ~~~~. Thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added references/importance factoids

Anirvan,

Thanks for the requests -- I'm trying to fulfill them. I've added several references to claims, and also some "importance" factoids (membership numbers, possibility that the BTP may be the first party to hold its convention online, etc.). I'm trying to avoid making claims of importance until after that convention, since there's no telling what its outcome will be (go back into the LP as a caucus, begin ballot access preparations for 2008, etc.).

One area I'm having citation problems with is the online convention claim. I've found references to a party in 2000 (the American Disability Party) planning an online convention, but not any of it actually having occurred (references to the ADP are sparse in general). A "moderate" coalition, [Unity08] claims to be planning the first ever online political convention for the 2008 presidential cycle, but obviously the BTP will be ahead of them since ours is this month.

I'll keep trying to improve the article, with special sensitivity to using it for self-promotion (I deleted the reference to myself as the found and author of the platform -- we're over 200 members now and my contributions, while not non-existent, are not central).

Regards,--Thomaslknapp 21:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)