Talk:The Conservative Woman
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|It is requested that a logo be included in this article to improve its quality.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. (June 2015)
Wikipedians in the United Kingdom may be able to help!The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
|This page was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.|
Restored notability tag. This is just a run-of-the-mill blog. None of the reliable external sources are actually about the blog at all as far as I can see, just the women who are involved with it, in different contexts. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Harry the dog. Can you have another look please? I think quite a few do talk about the blog and why it was established. All of them are reputable national newspapers and high profile sites like Conservative Home as well. It is my opinion that this page is reputable therefore. Considering authors include former Shadow Home Secretary, Conservative Party and UKIP politicians, it obviously has some gravitas. You may also have seen high profile journalists like Isabel Hardman and Janan Ganesh talking about it on Twitter. See these links: https://twitter.com/JananGanesh/status/489067350856335360 https://twitter.com/IsabelHardman/status/489000141970743296 (Greencoat Soup (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC))
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. (18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC))
Quite surprised by this. The article's sources must be reliable and credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. 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. Some of the refs (e.g. the Telegraph) don't actually mention the site. I see no credible indication here. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not as far as I can see. Blogs and Twitter are not reliable sources. The links to the BBC, Telegraph and Daily Mail asre not actually about the site. Still fails WP:GNG. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Pages for the Centre for Policy Studies and David Davis MP link through to The Conservative Woman. This should therefore not be considered an orphan. I will delete this warning. (RackinRibs (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC))