Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism
(Redirected from Wikipedia:CONSERVATISM)
Become a member!
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?
Alerts[edit]
- Articles needing attention
Articles for deletion
- 24 May 2024 – Institute for Legislative Analysis (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Rosguill (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
- 24 May 2024 – Cardus Education Survey Canada (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Rhododendrites (t · c); see discussion (0 participants)
- 23 May 2024 – Jeff Mateer (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by JohnAdams1800 (t · c); see discussion (5 participants)
Good article nominees
- 11 May 2024 – Centre-right politics (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Thebiguglyalien (t · c); start discussion
- 21 Mar 2024 – Basket of deplorables (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Yoshiman6464 (t · c); start discussion
- 15 Dec 2023 – L. K. Advani (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Magentic Manifestations (t · c); start discussion
Requests for comments
- 03 May 2024 – Andy Ngo (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by TarnishedPath (t · c); see discussion
- 27 Apr 2024 – True North Centre for Public Policy (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Fred Zepelin (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be merged
- 27 Jan 2024 – Jewish conservatism (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Judaism and politics in the United States by FatalSubjectivities (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be split
- 13 May 2024 – Turning Point USA (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by MaximusEditor (t · c); see discussion
Articles for creation
- 02 Mar 2024 – Draft:Republican Nomination for the October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by ELECTIONEDITS (t · c)
- 01 Mar 2024 – Draft:Darrell Leon McClanahan (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 50.231.37.122 (t · c)
- 17 Feb 2024 – Draft:College Republicans of America (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 24.92.141.127 (t · c)
- 10 Feb 2024 – Draft:Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Adamplevinson (t · c) was declined by ToadetteEdit (t · c) on 19 May 2024
- Other alerts
Deletion sorting/Conservatism
Conservatism[edit]
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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Washington, D.C.. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 follow
ing 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)
- 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
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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Education, Religion, and Canada. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
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.
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 23. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Arguably notable as one of the whistleblowers who filed a complaint about Ken Paxton, which made The Dallas Morning News call the group the "Texans of the Year", not just for the statements that led to his rejection as a judge nominee. The article seems to have a neutral point of view. Its talk page includes some additional suggested references that might be worth adding. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, his actions as general counsel for First Liberty Institute have been in the news, and are similarly controversial. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Mateer easily meets the WP:GNG with the coverage in the article surrounding his failed judicial nomination, along with sources such as [[1]] outside of that context showing that WP:SUSTAINED is met. If the consensus is not to keep, this should be redirected to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies as a WP:ATD. I'm also not seeing any POV issues here. Let'srun (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, per WP:USCJN. Presidential judicial nominees whose nomination is withdrawn due to controversy are evaluated the same was as those rejected by the United States Senate, for whom "this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability". Clearly there are other indicia, so this rises above that line. BD2412 T 16:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I doubt this article will stand the test of time and meet WP:sustained standards over the long haul, but I agree with the other editors here that it does meet notoriety standards now and should be kept. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Tasks[edit]
|
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
|
 | This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!
|