Deletion of Standpatter Republican

Comment: for the sake of clarity: the scope of the article hasn't changed (isn't changing), it was poorly expressed to begin with and that has now been |resolved through editing. Multiple sources have now been included in the article, several of which give the subject substantial coverage and none of which have been deemed unreliable. This is about a group of people, clearly well-known to their peers, who were described using this term. In addition, they were well known enough that the term has had a |lasting impact on political diologue and has since been used more recently. The original article's use of the term "faction" was a bit of a red herring as none of the reliable sources refer to this group by that term. But the article is still about that group of people and the sources are still about that same group
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PROBLEM||WP:LASTING)

Comment: Per .  Sourcing looks good now. The Tidwell article is a nice round-up of usage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: the subject is not notable, and all we're talking about here is a term, so this is a , not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. The use of  sources speaks to a valiant attempt to beef up the DICDEF to look like a sourced article (and an even more valiant attempt to argue down all comers here at AfD), but it's actually a clear case of  by synthesis. Delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:PRIMARY||WP:OR)

Comment: Seems to be notable in my view. There are numerous contemporaneous news articles of Standpatter Republicans distincted from Progressive Republicans, and with |significant coverage. https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22Standpatter%22&p_country=us&dr_year=1900-1930 A newspapers.com search of "Standpatter" with the additional queries of "between 1900 and 1930" and "in the USA" returns a whopping 191,000 articles. I browsed through the thumbnails of the first 50 or so, and all of them are referring to this faction, not some other use of standpatter. Additionally, https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22Standpatter+Republican%22 another search for "Standpatter Republican" (with no additional queries bc I didn't think they were necessary with such a specific term) returns over 1,000 articles. And yeah many are simply passing mentions, but many others provide significant coverage that show this was a notable faction contemporaneously. The article does need work to better integrate it into the encyclopedia; however, it should be kept as it passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)