Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teabagger

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 no consensus. There's certainly not a consensus to delete this, but there's no real consensus to do anything else either; a merge or redirect should be discussed at the article's talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teabagger

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

Rather Redundant, a paragraph or blurb in the tea party movement would be more than sufficient. This is a derogatory term with no historical Usage (unlike the "n-word") There is no need for it to be its own article.Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to a disambiguation about Teabags. Could also refer to the process of sticking your balls someplace, (cuze me for the vulgarity) or, heaven forbid, drinking tea Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, beginning of tea bag itself disambiguates four alternate uses. Redirection to "tea bag" is not advisable, since "teabagger" never refers to the literal brewing of tea. If the political usage of the word is merged to Tea Party protests or Tea Party movement, the article should be converted into a disambiguation page distinguishing the political term and the sexual act. Emily Jensen (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems cluttered to have Tea Party movement, Tea Party protests, and this. There are three articles discussing the same thing. ~~Relegating Teabagging from the primary topic smacks of recentsm and~~ isn't necessary with other articles covering the noun side of things. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I have changed my mind on Teabagging but will propose a name change for that article in the next day or so over there.Cptnono (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have a rename discussion open at Teabagging. Tea bag, Tea bag (sexual act), Tea Party movement, Tea Party protests, and a disambiguation page should be good enough. Teabagger is not needed as a redirect unless we are going to go with Teabagged, teabagging, teabagee, and so on. A teabagger could also be one who is teabagging in a sexual or video game context. Not Wiktionary.Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Political attack term and the article serves no other purpose. There are articles already on Tea Party protests and Tea Party movement. Clinchfield (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and or redirect to Tea Party movement. That these people have earned the nickname Teabaggers is not really up for debate. So derogatory or not, like it or not, its still a term associated with the movement, and should be discussed, either on its own or as part of a larger whole. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tea Party movement. Yes, it could theoretically also refer to Teabagging, but in the current political climate, that's probably not what someone who enters this search term is looking for. Robofish (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep as is (with a hatnote directing to Teabagging), or Keep as disambiguation page – which it used to be until September 11, 2009 – while merging the current content to Tea Party movement. Contrary to assertions above, the term "teabagger" or "tea bagger" is also commonly used to refer to someone engaged in the act of teabagging (see e.g. the pre-2009 entries here and here), so a simple merge-and-redirect will not work well. --Lambiam 22:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:NEO and WP:RECENTISM. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is very informative about the origins and usage of the term in the current political climate. Deleting it would be a loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.253.144 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Robofish Atom (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a biased attack term. TJIC (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, culturally significant phrase—it's quite possibly used more frequently than the term these people favor, which is "tea partier" (I think?). Merging and redirecting would also be viable. Everyking (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tea Party movement. It's a commonly used term for the individual participants of the movement, even if it does lean to the pejorative. --Darkwind (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2010 (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.