Deletion of Sedition Caucus

Comment: easily passes . Just because a page is mostly or entirely negative, or uses a derogatory term as it's title, doesn't mean it's an 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ATTACKPAGE)

Comment: Passes . Also per the guideline , which allows smaller articles to be spun out of big articles. 2021 storming of the US Capitol is 450kb, so there is not really enough room to move all of this content to that article. And this content should be covered somewhere. A key feature of a  or a  is that it is {{tq|negative in tone and '''unsourced'''}}. The sourcing on this article is excellent. BLP and ATTACKPAGE policies are not in place to censor negative material on living persons that is well sourced. If books and newspapers speak negatively of public figures, that is encyclopedic and does not run afoul of our policies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SUMMARYSTYLE||WP:G10||WP:ATTACKPAGE)

Comment: The subject of the article is a thing that has a really non-neutral but probably common name (the proper  doesn't have to be neutral). The subject is not a word per  (it is very dissimilar from something like Gay agenda), despite the article being styled that way (I find that kind of treatment of the subject to be okay regardless). This ''thing'' being the political phenomenon of there being this cluster of lawmakers taking an extreme and intransigent position, that breaks from political traditions. The phenomenon is notable and I see it being discussed as such, when it's trajectory is tracked even months later. Clearly the media who are continuously writing about this cluster are not talking about a word, but about something going on in the political realm, a thing, even when they write "so-called 'Sedition Caucus
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:COMMONNAME||WP:WORDISSUBJECT)

Comment: seems an adequately sourced . May be worthwhile to revisit if an article makes sense at this location after some time has passed or if it would be better covered elsewhere, but the BLP/ATTACK concerns appear quite overblown
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: as creator per  ("it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society") and  ("a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped or seen"). The article itself is on the term "Sedition Caucus", which has become widely used in the political world. The article also discusses the actions of the group of lawmakers dubbed the "Sedition Caucus", providing the necessary background for the term and spinning off tangential yet related content from the now-bloated article 2021 United States Capitol attack. Yes, the term itself is non-neutral, but it is unmistakably the  (this is entirely acceptable, see ). Similar pages include axis of evil, Bernie Bro, death panel, outposts of tyranny, and many other articles included in :Category:American political neologisms. Nowhere in the article does it assert that the Sedition Caucus is a legitimate group; it in fact says the literal opposite, as the deletion nominator helpfully pointed out above. This does not make it an attack page; rather, the page plainly documents a term and its historical context – that context being the Capitol attack and several Republican lawmakers voting against certifying Biden's victory. If a person finds that behavior objectionable, well, to tell you the truth, I can't blame you, but those are simply the plain facts of the situation. To pretend otherwise would be irresponsible. The riot and the vote happened, the term came to be, and as an encyclopedia we should have a page on it. The attack was an event which very quickly gained notability, and IMO the term "Sedition Caucus" passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:WORDISSUBJECT||WP:COMMONNAME||WP:NPOVTITLE||WP:10YT)