Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:CNSV)
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main   Talk   Portal   Showcase   Assessment   Collaboration   Incubator   Guide   Newsroom   About Us   Commons  


Shortcuts:

WikiProject Conservatism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to conservatism. You can learn more about us here. If you would like to help, please join the project, inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list below. Guidelines and other useful information can be found here.


Tasks

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
vieweditdiscusshistorywatch

Conservatism articles

Conservatism article rating and assessment scheme
(NB: Listing, Log & Stats are updated on a daily basis by a bot)
Daily log of status changes
Current Statistics
Index · Statistics · Log · Update


See also


Reports


Dashboard

Alerts

Today's featured articles
Good article nominees
Requests for comments

Assessment log

July 27, 2014

Assessed

July 26, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

July 24, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

July 23, 2014

Reassessed

  • Jimmie Åkesson (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).
  • William F. Knowland (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

July 22, 2014

Assessed

July 20, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

July 18, 2014

Assessed

July 17, 2014

Reassessed

  • 92 Group (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

July 16, 2014

Reassessed

  • Nanny state (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • Tim Huelskamp (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

July 15, 2014

Reassessed

  • Elizabeth Truss (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).

July 12, 2014

Reassessed

July 11, 2014

Removed

  • Scott Esk (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

July 10, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

July 9, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

July 8, 2014

Reassessed

July 7, 2014

Reassessed

July 6, 2014

Assessed

  • OANN (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Redirect-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as NA-Class (rev · t).

July 5, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

  • Lee Yancey (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

July 4, 2014

Reassessed

  • Reince Priebus (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

July 3, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

July 2, 2014

Reassessed

  • Trey Gowdy (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

Removed

July 1, 2014

Reassessed

  • Ted Baehr (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

June 30, 2014

Removed

June 28, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

June 26, 2014

Reassessed

  • Pam Bondi (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

June 25, 2014

Assessed

June 24, 2014

Reassessed

  • Bob Hope (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

June 23, 2014

Reassessed

  • Ron Manners (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Mid-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

June 21, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

June 20, 2014

Assessed

June 19, 2014

Assessed

  • Dave Brat (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

June 18, 2014

Reassessed

June 17, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

June 15, 2014

Reassessed

  • Paul R. McHugh (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

June 14, 2014

Assessed

June 12, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

  • Mayday PAC (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Scott Esk (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

June 11, 2014

Renamed

June 10, 2014

Removed

June 9, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

June 8, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

Removed

June 7, 2014

Reassessed

  • Ben Carson (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

June 5, 2014

Assessed

June 4, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

June 3, 2014

Assessed

  • TruthRevolt (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

June 2, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

June 1, 2014

Reassessed

May 31, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

May 29, 2014

Removed

  • Aiden (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

May 28, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

  • Kevin Brady (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

May 27, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

May 26, 2014

Removed

May 25, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

May 22, 2014

Assessed

May 21, 2014

Reassessed

May 20, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

Removed

May 18, 2014

Reassessed

  • Frank Maloney (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Removed

May 17, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

  • Frank Pavone (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

May 15, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

May 6, 2014

Assessed

Removed

April 30, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

April 29, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

April 26, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

April 25, 2014

Reassessed

April 24, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

April 23, 2014

Assessed

April 22, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

April 21, 2014

Reassessed

Removed

April 18, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

April 17, 2014

Reassessed

April 16, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

April 15, 2014

Removed

April 13, 2014

Reassessed

  • Nigel Evans (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

April 11, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

April 10, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

April 9, 2014

Assessed

  • Jeff Kuhner (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

April 7, 2014

Reassessed

April 4, 2014

Reassessed

April 2, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

April 1, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

March 30, 2014

Assessed

March 29, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

March 28, 2014

Reassessed

March 27, 2014

Renamed

March 25, 2014

Reassessed

Requests for Comment


Talk:Donald Trump

Are the sources:
  1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/12/cruz-and-paul-greeted-by-cheers-at-tea-partys-2016-warm-up/
  2. http://www.c-span.org/video/?318743-2/donald-trump-freedom-summit
  3. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/16/trump-bashes-boasts-and-curses-in-first-major-tea-party-speech/
  4. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-believer-tea-party/2013/10/10/id/530486/
  5. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/7/donald-trump-says-hes-a-tea-party-member/
  6. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/04/trump-on-the-today-show-im-with-the-tea-party.html

sufficient to label Trump in the possibly contentious category "People associated with the Tea Party movement"? 00:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie

*This has discussion has been brought to the attention of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey to access a broader range of opinion.Djflem (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Arranged marriage

There is a problem in regard to the lede of this article, in regard to the use of historical terms, and factual accuracy.



The lede of arranged marriage continues to be very confusing. It reads:

"In modern era, arranged marriage has continued in royal,[2] aristocratic families and ethnic minority groups in developed countries;[3]"

"Modern era" links to modern history, which is generally understood as lasting from 16th century - early 20th century. The article modern history reads: "The modern era began approximately in the 16th century". The formulation of the lede remains very problematic: it implies that throughout all of the "modern era" in "developed countries" arranged marriages were restricted only to "royal, aristocratic families and ethnic minority groups". First of all this is not supported by sources and is contradicted by the lede and article itself which state that it was only from the 18th century onwards that non-arranged marriage became somewhat mainstream. Also the source for royal marriage is for Princess Diana's marriage to Charles - this is generally referred to as contemporary history rather than modern history. I cannot access the other source for "ethnic minority groups in developed countries" but I believe it refers to the contemporary era too. Also terms such as developed countries/Western countries should not be used when discussing societies from centuries ago.

I changed "modern era" to "more recent times". It is still problematic, but I think it is better. If an exact timeframe cannot be given, at least it should not appear misleading. The lede still needs work. 2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:5679:AED5 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dialogue on edits by U.S. Congressional staff

I am in a room with several Congressional staffers. They are interested in exploring how they can contribute information in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies and best practices. In light of recent media reports, they are concerned with public perception of their participation on Wikipedia, even when edits are made in good faith. They are open to suggestions from the Wikipedia community. Harej (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mitch McConnell

How should Wilbur Ross, a backer of Mitch McConnell, be characterized in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2015

== Re-added Infobox

I have re-added the infobox in the format the article was set up; the same format as the preceding two articles. It is also the most recent reflection of what happened the last time there were council elections in most of the seats being contested in 2015. I set up the Rfc some time ago and it hasn't attracted any morecomment. For the time being we have 3 regular editors who have expressed support for UKIP's inclusion and non against. On the basis that there seems to be no change to the consensus I will re-add the infobox as was. That doesn't stop anyone else coming along to join the discussion, it merely puts an info box in place that there does seem to be consensus for. Owl In The House (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada

Should WP:PPAP continue to require the usage of official names rather than common names as the titles for Canadian political parties? TDL (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Public opinion on climate change

Should this Rasmussen poll be included in the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Should "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and "Arab-Israeli conflict" be merged to create a single entry-level article for the subject? Please do not comment (for now) on what the combined name should be. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2013 IRS controversy

Lois lerner's wrote an email in which she asked about OCS being logged, and saying "I was cautioning folks about email and how we have had several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails -- so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails" There was subsequent questioning of this email in the hearings, and commentary in reliable sources.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Should this email and subsequent questioning/commentary be included in a development in the controversy that is the topic of this article

Survey

  • include as nom. I find arguments about WP:NOTNEWS not very compelling - the entire article is about an ongoing news story. Its undisputed that the email is legitimate, and it is being used in congressional hearings, and has been discussed widely in reliable sources, within the context of the larger controversy. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Protective Edge

Current article text reads "[IDF] says Hamas was using the Gazan population as 'human shields';[20] an allegation denied by Hamas. ". Some sources [7]

[8] [9] [10] [11] have pointed out a video of an interview with Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri which he is quoted (translated) as saying "The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone... I think this method has proven effective against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our heroic and brave people, and we, the [Hamas] movement, call on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the Palestinian homes" .

Should this quote or a brief summary of the sources discussing these statements and quotes be included in the context of the allegations of use of Human shields?

Survey

  • include as proposer. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Article One of the United States Bill of Rights

Should impeached or non accessible secondary sources be considered superior to irrefutable primary sources when references to the primary source are merely providing factual information and not drawing conclusions or expressing a point of view? Please see section on "Correction To Legislative History".
  1. Primary sources are not appropriate in this case Until recently, this page contained much speculative discussion about a conspiracy to subvert the article subject, and this discussion was due to User:Mikcob, who has proposed this RfC. Since I and others cleaned up the page, Mikcob has continued to dispute niggling details of the legislative process undergone by the article subject, and has generally tried to support the edits with primary sources (e.g., the record of congressional proceedings). Though s/he has stopped trying to explicitly add back the conspiracy theory, I believe the reason Mikcob attaches importance to these details is because s/he thinks they are important to supporting the conspiracy theory.
Per WP:PSTS, the use of primary sources is appropriate only when the coverage from secondary sources is inadequate, and it must never be used to support interpretive points. For this topic, I think it is clear that secondary sources have covered all the ground that is of general interest (and contrariwise, if the points Mikcob wishes to add are not covered, then they are ipso facto not of general interest). Furthermore, even if it is not explicit, I worry that Mikcob's reasons for citing primary sources are in fact interpretive. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party

Started by Jyoti (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

As from the several sections above there has been some debate and discussion over whether the Green party along with others should be added to the table of polling results as a 'main party' (i.e. not listed under the 'others' section). Both sides feel as though Wikipedia policies and guidelines support their side and I feel as though we need some input from an outside, impartial source in order to come to a valid conclusion as neither side wishes to budge and there seems to be no in-between option for us to come to a compromise we are both happy with. CH7i5 (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement

Should the material sourced to Goldberg's article be edited to note the linkage between the movement and what she is saying about the movie?

Survey

  • Yes The material in question was copied from the movie article with no changes. As such, the material says many things about the movie but does not indicate a direct connection to any specific criticism of the movement. If the source makes a connection then that connection should be noted in this article within reason. Best practice would be to start from scratch in writing material based off the Goldberg source rather than trying to fashion material originally written about the movie into material about the movement.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan {{rfcquote|text= Considering developments in Iraq over the past months, I would herewith like to make this RfC regarding adding Iraqi Kurdistan to template:Asia topic under the section of "other Dependent territories". This is the second RFC on this topic, with first RfC issued on 20 October and closed 26 November 2013 with a "no consensus" outcome, see discussion from 2013. In the meanwhile, i would like to point out that Iraqi Kurdistan came into media attention and is referred as a notable case of exceptional autonomy, with high level of self-rule bound in Iraqi constitution, and hence is somewhat similar to Hong-Kong and Macau - Special Administrative Regions of China. Here are my reasonings:

  • Iraqi Kurdistan holds separate national symbols and a separate autonomous parliament and government (see [[12] KRG website]), not subject to direct Iraqi Federal control (see "Independent" article from 24.06.2014).
  • The legitimacy of separate Iraqi Kurdistan's government (the KRG) is bound in the 2005 Iraqi transition law in article 53 - "(A) The Kurdistan Regional Government is recognized as the official government of the territories that were administered by the that government on 19 March 2003 in the governorates of Dohuk, Arbil, Sulaimaniya, Kirkuk, Diyala and Neneveh. The term “Kurdistan Regional Government” shall refer to the Kurdistan National Assembly, the Kurdistan Council of Ministers, and the regional judicial authority in the Kurdistan region." [13].
  • Iraqi Kurdistan is a de-facto economically sustainable entity (though officially still under the scope of Federal Iraq), with the completion and operation of Kurdish-Turkish oil pipeline by early 2014 and construction of international airport in Arbil back in 2005. For several months already the Kurds operate without Federal funding.
  • Kurdish region security is entirely out of Federal Iraqi control and KRG effectively controls borders and internal order by Peshmerga forces (see CNN from 28.06.2014).
  • There are academic assessments of Iraqi Kurdistan as a "largely autonomous federal state within Iraq" (for example see review by Johns Hopkins University).
  • Kurdish region is widely referred by the media as an exceptional case of autonomy, referring to ""Kurdish autonomy" or "Kurdistan region" see The Economist,The Independent,Inquirer,Reuters.

I welcome other users to comment and emphasize that we are not talking about any form of independence of the Kurdish region in Iraq at this point (there is no independence), but about a case of exceptional autonomy.GreyShark (dibra) 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)}} Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal

Should the following content be included in this article?
Probes sparked by the lane closures are probing funding of the Pulaski Skyway

The lane-closure scandal also sparked inquiries by the Manhattan District Attorney's office and the U,S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC and Manhattan DA probes are focusing on the Pulaski Skyway, an elevated highway linking Newark and Jersey City. On June 23, 2014, The New York Times reported that the inquiries are focusing on possible securities law violations caused by Christie's use of Port Authority funds to pay for repairs to the Skyway in 2010 and 2011, using money that was to be used on a new Hudson River rail tunnel that Christie canceled in October 2010. The Times reported that use of the funds for the Skyway was opposed by Port Authority lawyers, and that investigators are focusing on possible mischaracterization of the Skyway project in Port Authority bond documents. Investigators are examining possible criminal violations of New York's Martin Act, as well as civil violations of the Act and federal securities laws. [1]

The Times reported that Jeffrey Chiesa, a close friend of Christie's and former New Jersey attorney general, was among the people who had been subpoenaed by the Manhattan District Attorney, but that he is not a target of the investigation. He was Christie's chief of staff when the bond documents were changed to include questionable language referring to the Skyway.[1]

Christie has expressed confidence that the SEC would find no wrongdoing in the financing of the Skyway project.[2]

CFredkin (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Rfc/testcases

Template:Rfc/testcases

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board

Request board

This is a human-edited list of requests for comment. Click here to add a new request.


For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every hour by Legobot.

Deletion discussions


Conservatism

The Conservative Woman

The Conservative Woman (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Conservative Woman" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

It's very rare that I make an error when tagging an article for CSD. However this was deCSDd by an admin whose opinions I very much respect. The subject, a website, has numerous sources, the main one cited for the removal of the CSD was a primary source as are several others. Other sources do not appear to address the subject of the web site at all, while yet other cited web sources have been blocked (for some reason) by the Thai government. Overall, it looks tome as if the article may possibly be spam for one person and/or her movement. After a careful review of the sources, the community should decide here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Just adding that the Thai govt blocked those sites with: This website contains information that is inappropriate and has been suspended by the Ministry of Information and Communication. Intersting, because in 15 years here in TH I've never seen anything like it before. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. fails WP:GNG and the notability guidelines for websites. Google turns up nothing. I had placed a notability tag on the article and put a comment on the TP figuring if another editor agreed they could speedy it. This is just a run-of-the-mill blog of a small fringe group of a political party of which there are thousands all over the web. None of the few reliable external sources are actually about the blog at all as far as I can see, just the people who are involved with it, in different contexts. What we have is the site itself and a few other blogs, most of which, if they mention the site at all, mention it in passing. The Telegraph link is a short article by one of the bloggers and doesn't actually mention the site itself. Likewise the BBC link. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello all. Thank you for your comments and apologies for my delayed response. I think some people have picked this up on the Talk page for the article and made some very valid suggestions and found info i didn't have. They seem to think it is reputable enough. I am new to all this but the blog is very high profile in the UK and, as you can see, has picked up some very reputable contributors and citations in major political parties and newspapers. For me this proves it is credible. I see some technical 'orphan' flaws have been sorted out too. I'd welcome any extra suggestions for improvement. (Slug Ashley (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC))

I think it is clear this page should not be deleted and this discussion closed. (RackinRibs (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC))

  • Comment How is it "clear"? Which Wikipedia policies do you base that assessment on? Harry the Dog WOOF 12:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think RackinRibs is right, despite not explaining himself. I've made some comments on the talk page, copied here. This page meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. It has verifiable and reputable sources. The content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles. For this reason I am removing the notability warning on the page. I'd recommend an administrator ceases to consider it for deletion. (94.116.239.172 (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC))
Sorry but it seems to be a clear case of reference padding. Clear out the blogs, Twitter and the sources that are not actually about this blog and you are left with - nothing. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Nothing apart from major UK newspapers, columnists and politicians talking about the website? That is reputable. (RackinRibs (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC))
Anyone can talk about anything. WIkipedia relies on reliable sources that are about the subject. There aren't any on this article. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That isn't true. Here is one of Britain's best know journalists on the biggest news website in the world talking about the website. http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/04/you-dont-have-to-be-like-harriet-harman-to-be-a-politically-conscious-woman.html (Slug Ashley (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC))#
It's a blog! Blogs are not reliable sources because they are not generally subject to fact-checking or editorial control even when hosted by a newspaper. (And the DM itself is not considered particularly reliable anyway.) A reliable source would be an article somewhere like the Daily Telegraph saying something like "According to the influential website Conservative Woman..." and then referring to something newsworthy. Give us several of those and you will have a notable website. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
You are letting your anti-Daily Mail bias cloud your judgment. It has a circulation of 2m+ and is the second most popular newspaper in Britain. You may not agree with its stance or like its content, but it is reputable. This website is significant, has significant contributors and has had a significant reaction, as proven by sources, comments above and so on. (Slug Ashley (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC))
I have no "anti-Daily Mail bias". Wikipedia guidelines themselves suggest that we should not rely on the DM as the sole source for anything whenever possible, as their fact-checking record is not great (viz their latest problems with George Clooney etc.). So it's not me, it's Wikipedia. In any event, as I pointed out, any blogs are not reliable sources. Most of the refs on the aricle are blogs or primary sources. The rest don't actually mention Conservative Woman. This website does not meet the notability guidelines for websites based on what has been supplied so far, and no amount of posting by its supporters will change that. Finding reliable sources that support notability will. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep There are some very good points made on the talk page too from others as to why this page should be kept. (RackinRibs (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC))

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010(talk) 23:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

New articles

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2014-07-28 19:21 (UTC)
















Other listings

Cleanup listing
Popular pages
Top edits watchlist
Hot Articles list (Top 20)

Related projects

WikiProject Conservatism is one of the Politics WikiProjects.

General Politics | Biography: Politics and government | Elections and Referendums | Law | Money and politics | Political parties | Voting Systems
Political culture Anarchism | Corporatism | Fascism | Oligarchy | Liberalism | Socialism
Social and political Conservatism | Capitalism | Libertarianism
Regional and national Australia | China | India | Japan | South Korea | New Zealand | Pakistan | United Kingdom | UK Parliament constituencies | US Congress | U.S. Supreme Court Cases

External links

  • This project on Commons Commons-logo.svg COM

Directory Directory of WikiProjects

 

Council WikiProject Council

 

Guide Guide to WikiProjects

  1. ^ a b Flegenheimer, Matt; Rashbaum, William K.; Zernike, Kate (June 23, 2014). "2nd Bridge Inquiry Said to Be Linked to Christie". The New York Times. Retrieved June 24, 2014. 
  2. ^ Isherwood, Darryl (April 29, 2014). "Christie confident SEC will find no issue with Pulaski funding". NJ.com. Retrieved 2014-06-24.