Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Conservatism)
"WP:RIGHT" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:Right (disambiguation).



Shortcut

Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where editors can easily ask questions, meet new colleagues and join A-Team collaborations to create prestigious, high quality A-Class articles. Whether you're a newcomer or regular, you'll receive encouragement and recognition for your achievements with conservatism-related articles. This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian.

  • Have you thought about submitting your new article to "Did You Know"? It's the easiest and funnest way to get your creation on the Main Page. More info can be found in our guide "DYK For Newbies."
  • We're happy to assess your new article as well as developed articles. Make a request here.
  • Experienced editors may want to jump right in and join an A-Team. While A-Class is more rigorous than a Good Article, you don't have to deal with the lengthy backlog at GA. If you already have an article you would like to promote, you can post a request for co-nominators here.
  • Do you have a question? Just ask

Alerts[edit]

Articles needing attention
Conservatism articles needing expert attention
Jatiya Party (Ershad)
Douglas Murray (author)
National conservatism
Bart Jan Spruyt
Doug Wardlow
Bill Whatcott

Today's featured articles

Articles for deletion

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Other alerts
Deletion sorting/Conservatism

Conservatism[edit]

Scott Keadle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Scott Keadle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP does not meet GNG for WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Only elected office is hyper-local county commissioner which would not normally qualify as notable outwith exceptional circumstances.

Somewhat of a perennial candidate, but given that they generally failed to get past primaries (much less general elections) and lack the WP:SIGCOV that would be needed for a perennial candidate to be notable (c.f. Howling Laud Hope or Count Binface), I don't believe they're over the line.

Promo/Peacock in "Community and family" section implies originally written by someone associated with his campaigns. That can be fixed/rewritten, but he's not notable to start with.

A previous AfD in 2013 came to no consensus, seemingly based on currency/recency of elections. But 12 years later I don't see that any enduring notability has been demonstrated. Hemmers (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation of the Polish Nation - Polish League[edit]

Organisation of the Polish Nation - Polish League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, coverage in independent secondary sources is fleeting. Cited sources include an opinion piece that does not appear to make mention of the topic ([1]), press releases from the organization itself ([2], [3]), press releases for a counter-protest against an action called by ONP-LP ([4]), and mere mentions in higher quality sources ([5] [6]). Searching online, on Google Scholar, and on Google Books for various permutations of the organization's name and acronym in English and Polish, I was not able to find significant coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and Poland. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I do not want to directly participate in the vote since I am the person behind the article, and I want to apologize since I created this article when my experience was somewhat lacking, and I relied heavily on translating the page from Polish Wikipedia.
    I would argue that the quality of the sources for the party is less of the problem of the party being that irrelevant (it participated in elections, which makes it more important than half of the 1990s Polish parties that have articles), and has more with me not doing a good job here. I apologize for my shortcomings and I will try to improve the article in the coming days.
    I managed to find following secondary sources that give more information on the party beyond a mere mention:
    • Lakomy Lilianna. (2008). Komunikacja perswazyjna w języku polityki na przykładzie polskich kampanii prezydenckich. Praca doktorska. Katowice : Uniwersytet Śląski;
    • Jacek Harłukowicz. (2005). Kandydat szuka niszy. https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kandydat-szuka-niszy-6037504817279617a;
    • Paweł Malendowicz. (2013). Polonia amerykańska wobec członkostwa Polski w NATO i Unii Europejskiej. Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej. Bygdoszcz;
    • Jarosław Tomasiewicz. (2002). Powrót Ligi. Sprawy Polityczne;
    • Marcin Kornak. (2008). Katolog wypadków – „Brunatna Księga”. NIGDY WIĘCEJ nr 16.
    Thank you. Brat Forelli🦊 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article was clearly improved to a good standard. Polish kurd (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - after improving article, I believe that the amount of references providing non-trivial mentions is sufficient to keep it.
Brat Forelli🦊 14:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article seems relevant to me and I believe the references should meet notability requirements. I also believe it has been improved and well worked on. Mevoelo (talk)

Institute for Legislative Analysis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Institute for Legislative Analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No change since the last AfD, coverage does not meet WP:ORGCRITE--the article's creator should have challenged the close by requesting that it be relisted, but instead went straight to RFUD. The additional sources linked in the discussion which they claim demonstrate notability do not include in-depth independent coverage of the organization that would satisfy WP:ORGCRITE. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the log over the last week shows I have made a number of attempts to address the concerns you raised. Additionally, I just added a piece on ILA's data (written 3 hours ago) by Fox News' Deroy Murdock on DailySignal (the platform of the largest conservative thinktank in the world). Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/24/democrats-not-republicans-are-capitol-hills-true-extremists/ Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After looking through the sources, this article fails WP:NORG. Needs more articles directly on the org itself - the article linked here is not at all significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - Please note the extensive write ups on the organization by both Fox News and state outlets:
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-conservative-group-grades-lawmakers-limited-government-principles-see-where-yours-stands. https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_17db6053-4975-5b50-b1e0-3fe3ef4e4317.html
    Additionally, please note the utilization of the ILA by the Nikki Haley campaign and the fact the organization's CEO was named by the Washingtonian as one of the Top 500 most influential in nation on policy due to the impact of their reports. I believe all of those factors coupled with the significant number of mentions by Members of Congress confirm the ILA meets WP:NORG. I closely follow right-of-center political non-profits and can confirm the ILA's media coverage and influence far exceeds many of the other organizations with pages on Wikipedia. Finally, I will note that the ILA is only a little over a year old and clearly an up and coming organization if you do research into what it has done so far. Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say the Gillette News-Record article might be borderline (though, being mostly quotes means that it wouldn't be secondary even though it's independent, and all four criteria have to be met by the same source). Being an up and coming organization is a clear indication that it is likely simply too soon to have an article on it, the criteria would normally only after they are already successful or prominent, not likely to do so in the future (i.e. § Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time). The Fox article does not clearly meet ORGIND, and even if we were to make an exception on the general consensus on think tanks in this case, the Daily Signal article is clearly WP:RSOPINION and therefore not considered reliable for statements of fact.
    I would strongly advise if you do wish to continue working on an article about this organisation, that you do so as a draft, and not move it to mainspace without review by the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. While closely following such organisations would probably help you develop an article, I don't believe your evaluation of the sources accurately reflect the standards they are assessed on. As for the other organisations for which coverage on this one far exceeds, I would say they most likely would be deleted if they cannot be brought to standard, but most such articles are not reviewed regularly (after all, we have 6 million of them, that would take some time). Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notability bar for companies and organisations is deliberately set high. I'm not seeing "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The article about Wyoming legislators criticising a report from the organisation is not sufficient and not "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." as required. Per WP:SIRS, part of WP:NCORP, "An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability." AusLondonder (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep – Reviewed sources and feedback from discussion. It appears general consensus is Fox News and Gillette News Record pieces are borderline, but technically meet WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP. I concur Daily Signal fails WP:ORGIND. Would like to see additional sources but believe enough to scrape by. Tremendous amount of attention provided to the org even if not necessarily primary WP source material is what I believe puts it over top. In just past 24 hours the org has been referenced by over dozen plus members of congress (press releases, socials, etc.) – clearly a very notable org. If this was an old/inactive org that's one thing, but WP has been more lenient to nonprofits. SamwiseTarly (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardus Education Survey Canada[edit]

Cardus Education Survey Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Came across the article on the Christian think tank Cardus today, which appears to be the result of WP:UPE. I stubified that rather than nominate it for deletion because it looks like there's enough out there for WP:ORG. But that led me to this, a long article on one of Cardus's reports, again with no good independent sourcing at all (but a whole lot of text). Wouldn't be surprised if this were UPE too. In any event, if there's a little bit of coverage it can be summarized in the main article. WP:GNG fail here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Mateer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jeff Mateer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability, and likely violates NPOV.

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.

Tasks[edit]

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
view • edit • discuss • history • watch
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism&oldid=1204246363"