Deletion of List of congresspersons who received campaign money from the NRA

Comment: it is extracted from public records and the topic and list has been covered in RS like CNBC. It's a valid topic and valid list. You are free to start another list if you can find reliable sources for the list that discuss the list topic. Please don't make  nominations in an area under Discretionary Sanctions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: this is inherently an NPOV violation.  We wouldn't keep a List of congresspersons who received campaign money from George Soros or List of congresspersons who received campaign money from the Koch brothers for obvious reasons, and we shouldn't keep this either.  It's also borders on a  collection of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: Neutral article, satisfies , discussed in CNN, AJC, CNBC, and that's kinda it. Trout {{u|Legacypac}} for moving the page, now I can't judge whether this is notable or if "just 2016" is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:CLT)

Comment: this list vios : this is a non-encyclopedic cross categorization, and with the name change it is even worse, now a ''triple'' cross categorization:  Members of Congress, a single organization and a single year.  It also relies on a single source, and  requires multiple sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:LISTN)

Comment: The subject easily meets , our primary notability guideline for list articles. On top of that, the information is neutrally presented and of substantial encyclopedic value
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: The source for the substance of the data is opensecrets.org (source 11, currently, on the article).  The other sources are all window-dressing about violence by people with guns, "top-10 NRA donor recipients," etc.  So, is opensecrets.org the new fashionable , and is Wikipedia to replicate all its data?  Seems unreasonable.  Also, : why only this page dedicated to 2016?.   reads: "''Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail''".  I say the depth of detail points to POV-pushing, raising  issues.  As pointed out on the TP, opensecrets.org offers the same data for 2014, 2012, 2010, etc.  Insofar as these pages do not exist, it appears to be UNDUE to have this one page.  Mind you, insofar as the article is quote-"supported"-unquote by some  articles, I do think it would be fair for interested editors to build an article such as "NRA political contributions in the early 21st Century", or some such.   It's just the deep data replication from opensecrets.org that is highly questionable, UNDUE, and therefore this article should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:UNDUE||WP:WEIGHT||WP:NPOV||WP:RS)

Comment: The subject meets  as MrX pointed out. It covers both political parties, Republicans and Democrats -- note that 10 years ago, there would be more politicians from both parties on this list, but for reasons not of my doing, the http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/tns-nra-campaign-contributions.html NRA gravitated to the GOP (but Democrats are included); frankly, I didn't know before I started this list how few Democrats were on it, and I would have made this list regardless of how it broke out in terms of political parties. Frankly, trying to guess about people's motivations in creating any article in Wikipedia is fraught with difficulty, and irrelevant -- let's deal with the list as it is. The nominator's worry that these politicians are being "shamed" is really out of context -- one thinks of shaming in the context of a private person, in which some embarrassing detail is revealed unnecessarily, like exposing a married person's affair when nobody cares. But here we have '''public officials''' who are supposed to work in the public's interest, and yes it is highly important for voters to know where ''our'' legislators are getting their campaign monies from, particularly when it involves an ongoing topic of importance -- gun violence and gun control. And this topic of NRA contributions to members of Congress is highly notable such as sources http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5564241/Parkland-survivor-David-Hogg-confronts-John-McCain-Twitter-NRA-donations.html here and http://journaltimes.com/opinion/letters/radke-is-your-candidate-in-the-nra-s-pocket/article_d4767430-7bf1-55b6-9500-ee624220aee0.html here and http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2 here and https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/1/nra-spending-pays-elections/ here and elsewhere
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)