Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Statement

Sharon Statement

Sharon Statement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:STANDALONE WP:PAGEDECIDE. It is highly unusual to see an article devoted solely to an organization's founding statement of principles. In fact I can't think of a single equivalent article anywhere in the encyclopedia. The Sharon Statement is only barely notable, and the content here that's reliably sourced is largely redundant with what's already in Young Americans for Freedom. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC) Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• See Category:American political manifestos.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC) Oops, my error. The relevant category is Category:Manifestos.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: the notability of the Sharon Statement is without question. Even the New York Times says it is a "seminal document" in the founding of the conservative movement. Numerous Google hits. Numerous reliable sources. And it is not at all unusual for an organization's founding document to have its own article. Take for instance Port Huron Statement in respect to Students for a Democratic Society.– Lionel^(talk) 07:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: minutes prior to nominating Sharon for deletion, the nominator removed almost half of the reliable sources and replaced it with CN tags.– Lionel^(talk) 07:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep -- No actual reason given for deletion. Nom's statement that they "can't think of a single equivalent article anywhere in the encyclopedia" is not only meaningless in the context of AfD but it also reveals a kind of ignorance of the subject matter which ought to but so frequently does not give editors pause before starting yet another time-wasting AfD. Just e.g. see Port Huron Statement (with which the Sharon Statement is frequently contrasted in RS) and Contract from America. Irrespective of that, this easily meets the GNG. Just for instance, see [1], [2], [3], [4]. There are hundreds more. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep nomination is frivolous. If Nom is serious, he should click on Manifesto#Notable manifestos. And he or anyone taking this nomination seriously should should click on the "books" button in the tool bar. I remind Nom that a remarkable range of subjects can be notable, if they have strong souring. This is just a WP article on a notable topic that needs improvement. What else is new?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been linked at WT:WikiProject Conservatism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment by nominator. There's no dispute that the subject is notable. The issue is that it's neither encyclopedic nor practical to maintain an article about an organization's mission statement separate from the organization itself--hence my reference to WP:STANDALONE. It's not like Young Americans for Freedom is so long that parts of it need to be spun off. Manifesto#Notable manifestos is interesting, but I didn't find any articles in that list that seemed equivalent. As an aside, I find it odd that all three editors who have responded so far have made oblique, unnecessary ad hominem arguments. I suggest we all try to focus on the merits and avoid personalizing the discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I do not generally respond to AfD nominations so dismissively, but you might want to strike the first 2 sentences of your nomination, they do give this nomination a "frivolous" appearance. I am always willing to be persuaded to change an iVote. I do not claim familiarity with this Statement before I met it here the other day, so I have revisited it in the light of your objection and am here to double down on my opinion. I think that we must regard as independently significant a political manifesto that Eric Foner: in The Story of American Freedom engages with, that Rebecca Klatch discusses in her Charles Tilly Award for Best Book-winning book A Generation Divided: The New Left, the New Right, and the 1960s], and that Robert Donaldson included in his Documentary History of the Nation Since 1945].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Doctor, you should also strike you "delete" vote, a bolded iVote by Nom is verboten since it is assumed that the nomination is a vote for deletion ((nominators are welcome to change to iVote should they change their opinion to keep, merge, or redirect.) In short, you are welcome to join this conversation, but not to vote twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs) 16:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that rule. Fixed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to strike arguments just because you disagree with them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It was the 1919 Fascist Manifesto that first came to mind, although the Regina Manifesto is a more exact example of "an article devoted solely to an organization's founding statement of principles," as you put it. However, the best example of an article about "an organization's founding statement of principles," would be the United States Declaration of Independence. But even if these counterexamples dis not exist, the argument in the lede is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, it is not policy based. Your nomination would be taken more seriously without it. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

By some. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Merge excessive coverage. The sources are really about the organization; the statement has no significance otherwise .As for the comparisons, see WP:EINSTEIN. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)