Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

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

Contents

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

Categories for discussion
(3 more...)
Good article reassessments
Requests for comments

Assessment log

August 26, 2016

Reassessed

  • Bill Stepien (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).
  • Dark Enlightenment (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

August 24, 2016

Reassessed

August 23, 2016

Assessed

August 22, 2016

Reassessed

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

Assessed

August 21, 2016

Reassessed

  • Merle Terlesky (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

Removed

August 19, 2016

Reassessed

Assessed

August 18, 2016

Assessed

Removed

August 17, 2016

Reassessed

Assessed

August 15, 2016

Reassessed

  • Jason Rapert (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

Removed

August 11, 2016

Removed

August 10, 2016

Assessed

Removed

August 9, 2016

Assessed

August 8, 2016

Reassessed

Assessed

August 6, 2016

Assessed

Removed

August 5, 2016

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

August 3, 2016

Reassessed

  • Westbrook Pegler (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

  • Jerry Doyle (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

August 1, 2016

Reassessed

  • Richard Perle (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 29, 2016

Reassessed

  • Billboard of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Redirect-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to NA-Class (rev · t).
  • Murphy Brown (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

July 28, 2016

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

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

Removed

July 26, 2016

Reassessed

July 24, 2016

Assessed

Removed

July 23, 2016

Reassessed

Removed

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

July 22, 2016

Renamed

Assessed

Removed

July 20, 2016

Reassessed

  • Bo Derek (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Removed

  • Ed McAteer (talk) removed. Quality rating was Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Low-Class (rev · t).

July 19, 2016

Reassessed

  • Scott Baio (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

Removed

July 18, 2016

Reassessed

  • H. L. Hunt (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

Removed

July 16, 2016

Reassessed

July 15, 2016

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

July 14, 2016

Reassessed

Removed

July 13, 2016

Assessed

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

Removed

July 12, 2016

Reassessed

  • A. L. Zissu (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class (rev · t).
  • Joe Hockey (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • Little Green Footballs (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

  • May ministry (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Mid-Class (rev · t).

Removed

July 11, 2016

Reassessed

July 10, 2016

Reassessed

July 9, 2016

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

July 8, 2016

Assessed

Removed

July 6, 2016

Reassessed

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

Assessed

Removed

July 5, 2016

Renamed

Assessed

Removed

July 3, 2016

Reassessed

July 1, 2016

Assessed

Removed

June 30, 2016

Assessed

Removed

June 29, 2016

Removed

June 28, 2016

Reassessed

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

Requests for Comment


Talk:Jill Stein

Should either of the following sentences (in any form) be included on Jill Stein's biography page?

When asked if she considered it appropriate to call President Obama an "Uncle Tom" as her running mate did, Stein answered "I would never do that." When asked if she would make Baraka apologize for calling Obama an "Uncle Tom", Stein said that she would not.[1]

When asked if she agreed with her running mate's reference to the “gangster states” of NATO, Stein answered that she would not use Baraka's language but that "he means the same thing I'm saying".[1]

SashiRolls (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

Should the lead section, which currently says:
"His statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, ..."

be changed to read (changes in bold):

"Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false,[1][2] ..."

The proposed sources are:

Prior talk page discussion here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France

There is disagreement about whether the article should include lists of individual recent antisemitic incidents. I have argued that these are not noteworthy according to wikipedia standards because Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNP and this seems like a list of recent and not particularly noteworthy or historically significant anti-semitic incidents. Also see WP:RECENT. I think the content in question will not pass the ten-year test. Other editors disagree with me but we seem to be consistently talking past each other, and it would be good to have some additional eyes on this. See above discussion on Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France#Don't just list incidents and a previous similar RfC at Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States#RFC_-_Antisemitic_incidents. The specific text in question is:

2015 attacks

There was an attack on soldiers guarding a Jewish community center in February 2015.[2] During the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks, the Porte de Vincennes siege involved gunman taking hostages at a Kosher supermarket. In the aftermath of the attacks, the French government increased the presence of soldiers outside prominent Jewish buildings.[3]

On 24 October 3 Jewish men outside a synagogue in Marseille were stabbed by a man shouting anti-Jewish slogans. One of the victims sustained serious abdominal wounds; he was expected to survive. The assailant was apprehended.[4]

On 18 November 2015 a teacher in Marseille was stabbed by three men who shouted anti-Jewish slogans; one of the men wore an ISIS T-shirt. The three men approached the teacher riding two scooters and stabbed him in the arm and in the leg. They fled when a car approached.[5][6][7]

2016 attacks

On January 12, 2016 Benjamin Amsellem, a teacher, was viciously attacked by a teenage boy wielding a machete outside a Jewish school in Marseille. The attacker claimed to be acting in the name of ISIS.[8] Amsellem was able to save himself by parrying some of the machete blows with the large, leather-bound Bible he was carrying.[9] The attacker was a Kurdish Muslim whose family emigrated to France from Turkey; he was an excellent student form a stable, pious home who is said by French authorities to have self-radicalized spending long hours reading Islamist websites.[9]

On August 18, a "confirmed anti-semite"[10][11] shouted "allahou akbar"[12] (allah is great, in English), as he attacked a 62 year-old Jew wearing a kippa on avenue des Vosges in Strasbourg. The attacker had previously knifed another jew in 2010 in Kléber square. The French Minister of the Interior, Bernard Cazeneuve, called the rabbi of Strasbourg to express his "solidarity." The attacker was said to have mental problems.[13][14] The attacker was charged the following day with «attempted murder based on the victim's appearance belonging to a race or religion[15]».

References

  1. ^ a b Staff, Post Opinions (2016-08-25). "A transcript of Jill Stein's meeting with The Washington Post editorial board". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2016-08-26. 
  2. ^ "French soldiers wounded in Nice Jewish centre attack". BBC News. 
  3. ^ "As Soldiers Guard Parisian Synagogues, Jews Question Their Place and Their Safety in France". Haaretz.com. 
  4. ^ "3 Jews stabbed in anti-Semitic attack in France". Times of Israel. 24 October 2005. Retrieved 14 December 2015. 
  5. ^ "Jewish teacher stabbed in French city of Marseille". BBC. 18 November 2015. Retrieved 14 December 2015. 
  6. ^ "Jewish Teacher Stabbed in Marseille by ISIS Supporters". New York Times. 18 November 2015. Retrieved 14 December 2015. 
  7. ^ "Jewish teacher stabbed in Marseille street by trio praising Islamic State". The Guardian. 18 November 2015. Retrieved 14 December 2015. 
  8. ^ Hall, John (12 January 2016). "Marseille machete attack: 15-year-old suspect claims he stabbed Jewish teacher 'in the name of Isis'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 25 January 2016. 
  9. ^ a b Nossiter, Adam (24 January 2016). "French Jews Fear a New Strain of ISIS-Inspired Anti-Semitism". New York Times. Retrieved 25 January 2016. 
  10. ^ AURÉLIEN POIVRET. "Un juif agressé par un déséquilibré". Darnières Nouvelles d'Alsace (in French). Retrieved 23 August 2016. Il s'agit d'un déséquilibré de 44 ans, antisémite revendiqué 
  11. ^ Jacques Fortier. "Strasbourg : un juif blessé par un antisémite récidiviste". Le Monde (in French). Retrieved 23 August 2016. l’agresseur semble ne rien avoir perdu de sa haine antisémite 
  12. ^ Michaël Bloch. "Un juif religieux attaqué au couteau à Strasbourg". Le Journal du Dimanche (in French). Retrieved 23 August 2016. Un juif religieux d'une soixantaine d'années a été blessé après avoir été attaqué au couteau à Strasbourg par un homme qui a crié "Allahou Akbar". 
  13. ^ "Jewish man stabbed on street in French city of Strasbourg". BBC. Retrieved 23 August 2016. A police source said the victim was in distinctive Jewish dress 
  14. ^ https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/08/19/known-wolf-alert-man-who-stabbed-rabbi-in-strasbourg-shouting-allahu-akhbar-involved-in-prior-stabbing/
  15. ^ "Strasbourg : l'auteur de l'agression au couteau contre un juif a été écroué". Paris Match (in French). Retrieved 23 August 2016. le parquet de Strasbourg a annoncé samedi soir dans un communiqué avoir ouvert une information judiciaire «pour tentative de meurtre sur une victime en raison de son appartenance réelle ou supposée à une race ou à une religion» 

Thank you. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

Should this article mention the fact that WikiLeaks offered $20,000 in reward money for providing information regarding the perpetrator of this crime? FallingGravity 06:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Han Chinese

There is a dispute over the languages used by Han Chinese. I want the community to decide. We have 2 options here.
A:native: Mandarin, Yue, Wu, Hunanese, Hakka, Minnan, Mindong, Gan
others: English, Malay, Thai, Castilian, Japanese, and other local languages.
B Chinese languages

Please indicate which one you prefer. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Slut-shaming

One view is that this article is about the topic, not the word, and so we can use sources to identify matters as slut-shaming even if the sources do not call the matter slut-shaming; it is for us to decide whether something is on topic or not, and whether we are introducing bias or undue WP:weight. The other view is this is not a WP:Not a dictionary matter; this is a matter concerning whether or not it is acceptable (and not a WP:Synthesis violation) to take sources that do not make it explicitly clear, in words, that the topic is about slut-shaming and then using those sources to make claims about slut-shaming. For those viewing this from the RfC page or their talk page, the full discussion is above, at Talk:Slut-shaming#Scope. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of European countries by average wage

This overlaps with List of sovereign states in Europe by minimum wage. Should these two articles be merged?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton

WRT the discussion above, should the article include the term "Conspiracy theory"? If the answer is yes, should the article be categorized in "Category:Conspiracy theorists"? – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy

Should Eron Gjoni's side of the story be reported?

I tried to add Eron Gjoni's side of the story in edit 734887712, but it was quickly reverted by frequents editors of this article citing "need for concensus," which seems to be abuse of the concept of concensus. Concensus is noted to be needed for bold edits. I'm adding Gjoni's side of the story in a tiny manner. There is no controversy in that. Not noting his side of the story would infringe upon WP:BLP. Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

Requesting input per this lead removal on August 15 with this rationale, which met with reversions from User:Nomoskedasticity, and a reversion from User:SegataSanshiro1, both citing prior consensus. They are referring to a two-year discussion about the use of “vulture” as a descriptor in the lead of a biography. For the purpose of this discussion, I have a two-part question:

1) Is “vulture” a derogatory slur?

2) If so, does it belong in the lead of a biography (or corporate lead for that matter)?

In the hopes of keeping discussion pointed, I might strongly urge contributors from the prior RfCs to read the extended reasoning for my removal before adding their thoughts. Likewise, I'm sure scanning the old RfCs for new contributors would be a boon. Yvarta (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Frankfurt School

I firmly believe that the lede of the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS. User:Jobrot disagrees and has repeatedly reverted my WP:NPOV warning without cause. The lede currently states:

'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance commonly refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of a contemporary movement within the political left to take over and destroy Western society.

If we pare the statement down to its essentials, it states that:

'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance commonly refers to a conspiracy theory

The claim being advanced is:

1. It is a conspiracy theory.

2. This "fact" is commonly known and the cultural and political mainstream (all major political and cultural divisions) believes this without a shadow of a doubt.

3. Only a small fringe continues to use the term in a "non-ironic" way.

The sources cited as evidence are:

1. An article by Jerome Jamin, a left-wing academic researching right-wing movements.

2. An article by Bill Berkowitz for the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing organization which maintains large lists of what it believes to be right-wing and religious movements and hate-groups. The article is entitled Reframing the Enemy.

3. American paleo-conservative William S. Lind.

Now, it is no surprise that left-wingers like Jamin and Berkowitz/SPLC believe that "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory. But Lind does not believe that. Neither do the right-wingers mentioned by Berkowitz in his article.

The conclusion is that only some left-wingers consider "Cultural Marxism" to be a conspiracy theory. And instead of stating things as they are, the section currently uses WP:SYNTHESIS and weasel words like commonly refers to (without mention the subjects who do the referring) to convert an opinion held in some parts of the left to a strong, universal claim.

I formally request comments on the structure of the lede. Last Contrarian (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:SIG MCX

Should the article mention the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, which was committed with a SIG MCX? 01:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Philippines v. China

We are more than half-way through the current 30-day full protection of this article, and I worry there's a slight risk edit warring could resume at the end of that period. In the interest of keeping this RfC as narrow as possible, let's ask this question: which side of this diff—[1]—is preferable? For clarity, we can call the options "list more countries as supporting China's position" and "list fewer countries as supporting China's position". The question is not the best possible approach to the issue, but which is a better starting point once page protection ends. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Republic of China general election, 2016

Should we change the titles of those election articles from "Republic of China xxx elections" to "Taiwanese xxx elections"?

The scope of this discussion includes all elections and referendums held in Taiwan from 1949 to present. Coco977 (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ajamu Baraka

Shall the highlighted quote be included or excluded from the "views and writings" section?
Writings by Baraka have appeared in Black Agenda Report, Common Dreams, Dissident Voice, Pambazuka News, and CounterPunch, and other media outlets.[1] Politico Magazine reports that Baraka "has a long history of fringe statements and beliefs."[2]

References

  1. ^ "Articles--Ajamu Baraka". A Voice from the Margins. Baraka. Retrieved August 7, 2016. 
  2. ^ Christopher Hooks (August 7, 2016). "What If the Green Party Stopped Being Kooky and Started Getting Real?". Politico Magazine. 
Neutralitytalk 01:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox organization

The parameter 'trustees' does not exist in the template code, however it has been documented. This leads to the questions:

1) should the parameter be added to the code, or removed from the documentation?

2) if the parameter is be be added, should the trustees be listed under 'key people', or have a separate entry in the infobox under trustee/s?

3) Technical question - how can it be determined if any articles using the infobox have used the parameter trustess?

Jonpatterns (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy

The current lede to the Gamergate controversy article is frequently criticised as being rambling and overly long. I therefore propose that we replace it with the following in the interest of clarity. Artw (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016

Should the following statement be included in the lede to this article?

In addition, polling throughout the campaign has indicated that she is perceived as being “dishonest” by a significant proportion of the public.[1]

References

  1. ^ See:
CFredkin (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

Should the following highlighted statement be included in the lede to this article?

Trump's disdain for what he considers to be political correctness has been a staple theme of his campaign and has proved to be popular among his supporters,[1] although mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism.[2]

References

  1. ^ Itkowitz, Colby (December 9, 2015). "Donald Trump says we're all too politically correct. But is that also a way to limit speech?". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved February 13, 2016. 
  2. ^ See:
CFredkin (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Paul Nehlen

Paul Nehlen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Paul Nehlen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Now that the primary is over and he's not nearly as successful as Dave Brat, we can say for certain he fails WP:POLITICIAN. I also believe that he fails WP:GNG. There are a couple of sources that discuss his primary challenge, but that will fail the ten-year test. Other sources appear to barely mention him at all, so are not significant coverage. I see two references to his campaign website, and one to a list of his patents. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete not even a nominated candidate for US congress, but only election would make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep This campaign received significant national coverage, so could arguably meet GNG for now. ABC News, Washington Times, Conservative Review, Business Wire. Trump gave Nelhlen's candidacy an endorsement or something close to it, then snatched it away a couple days later. Nehlen could get recruited for a position in a future Trump administration, or could get groomed for more runs for office in the future. Ten-year test isn't policy -- it might be a good idea in some situations, but in this case I'd recommend we wait to apply that test for a few years down the road. If Nehlen fades back into private life, I agree we would delete the article, but it's too early to decide. JerryRussell (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Trump never endorsed Nehlen. He tweeted something positive to him, that's not an endorsement. The coverage Nehlen received was WP:ROUTINE regarding the election against Ryan, where he was more a bit player in the Trump-Ryan saga than a notable individual on his own. It's never too early to delete, but it can be WP:TOOSOON to create. I argue that it should be deleted now, and it could be recreated if he establishes notability beyond this primary challenge. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Question: if there is another chapter to this saga in the future, how easy will it be for future editors to recover this information? If it's a simple process, I would change my vote to delete. JerryRussell (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
An administrator can restore a deleted article with one click on one button. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention this site seems to collect all deleted articles for their repository. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
News about Nehlen: He's started a pro-Trump 'super PAC', reported in three RS: [2][3][4]
Does this help? I'm staying with a weak 'keep' vote for now. JerryRussell (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. A candidate in a party primary does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in a party primary — even if he'd won the primary, he still wouldn't automatically get an article on that basis, but would remain not eligible for one unless and until he won the general election in November. We keep articles about the people who hold notable offices, not everybody who puts their name up as a candidate for one. And neither can a person claim to pass WP:GNG just because he happened to be running against a nationally known figure like Paul Ryan and therefore the race got increased coverage — that coverage attests to Ryan's notability, not Nehlen's, and just makes Nehlen a WP:BLP1E. And finally, the possibility that he might attain further notability in the future is not a reason to keep the article now. If he does attain further notability in the future, we can always recreate a new article about him when that time comes — but in the meantime, we do not keep articles based on predictions about what might happen, we keep or delete articles based on what's already true today. And nothing that's true today is enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. All the refs are either primary source from campaign website or secondary sources referring to him in routine coverage of a primary. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails notability for politicians. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Failed candidates don't meet WP:POLITICIAN; insufficient third-party RS coverage for WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
How is there insufficient third-party coverage? Plenty of major, reliable national/international news sources covered him and his campaign. Is that not enough to be sufficient? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article definitely meets WP:GNG, and he received significant national coverage, as JerryRussell pointed out above. Trump publically thanked him for supporting him,[5] and spoke highly of him and almost endorsed him,[6] even though he endorsed Ryan, something which was also widely covered in national news. Also, Nehlen made a campaign video that received almost 300,000 YouTube views and a lot of coverage in national news in its own right [7]. Sure, Nehlen only received 16% of the vote in the end, but with all that publicity, one could have seriously wondered if Nehlen would pull a Cantor on Ryan. And not just that, but Nehlen is not finished -- he created a pro-Trump PAC [8]. This article clearly, clearly should be kept, and nothing less. It is clearly notable for inclusion. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and most sourcing was during the week before; minus the quick Trump boost (and again, not endorsed by him), most of the coverage was of the generic 'meet the candidate' profiles put in by newspapers the week before, followed by 'lost election terribly stories'; the Janesville Gazette struggled to get much comment from the candidate in the first place for their 'meet the candidate' profile, and then there's some digression involving a patent for something a layman doesn't care about. Nate (chatter) 02:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Nehlen received massive coverage despite loosing the election. The huge discussions in national media about him started when he posted a campaign ad that received almost 300,000 YouTube views (which I posted above). That video was posted in early May, and coverage over him continued through early August, when the primary occurred. And Trump almost endorsed him. Is he really not notable enough after all this? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment I'm in a market which is part of Ryan's congressional district. Nehlen was very rarely mentioned in the last couple months locally in newspapers and on TV/radio outside of being mentioned as the 'token opposition'. I saw more about him nationally in the last week of the election than I did much local coverage outside of a few 'Ryan could now win by only twenty points' stories. The Trump boost is pretty much it for coverage of the candidate nationally and only bumped the story up from the start of the B-block to the end of the A-block locally. Nate (chatter) 03:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
But he still received a lot of national coverage. That fact remains either way. Also, read WP:NTEMP. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he's really not notable enough after all of this. Even if he'd won the primary, none of this would have qualified him for an article on that basis alone; he still would have had to go on to win the general election in November to become notable enough. The number of hits garnered by a YouTube video does not support notability in and of itself, because social media hit counts can be artificially inflated by SEO techniques (meaning we have no way to properly verify whether that stat represents 300,000 people viewing it once or one person viewing it 300,000 times.) Being endorsed by a notable figure wouldn't boost the notability of a candidate in and of itself, let alone merely being "almost endorsed" (which in this instance really just means retweeted, which isn't notability either) by a notable figure who didn't endorse him when push came to shove. And on, and so forth — what you need to get Paul Nehlen over the bar is a strong and credible reason why he would be a topic that people are still going to be seeking out ten years from now, not just evidence of momentary current newsiness. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
In and of itself, making a YouTube video or starting a PAC are not notable, but Nehlen has received much coverage for all of these things. Simply being endorsed by a notable figure is not notable in and of itself, but Trump's actions generated a lot of coverage from national media. That made it notable. All of this things in and of itself obviously don't make someone notable, but put all these things together and combine that with massive national media coverage, and the notability of this topic is debatable in the least. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: FWIW, the national media is still talking about Nehlen [9][10]. He's not going away. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
People don't get Wikipedia articles for starting SuperPACs, or for just "not going away", either. If and when he accomplishes something that makes him a topic that people will still be seeking out in 2026, then there will be a case for "more notable than the norm for a failed primary candidate" — but you haven't shown anything that already gets him over that very high bar today. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: While my !vote for "keep" still stands, if the decision is to delete this article, I recommend merging the content of this article that pertain to the 2016 Republican Primary to United States House of Representatives elections in Wisconsin, 2016#District 1. Even if it is decided that Nehlen is not notable enough for his own article, the events of the GOP primary are still too notable to simply delete outright. The events of Trump not endorsing Ryan and speaking highly of Nehlen (as well as his eventual endorsement of Ryan due to pressure from his party) should be documented in the election article (they are not right now). --1990'sguy (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • !Seconded. TimothyJosephWood 15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I can be okay with that as an alternative to deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd have no objection to that alternative either. Nobody has said at all that the event isn't notable enough to warrant mention anywhere in Wikipedia at all — it's just not enough to make him a suitable candidate for a standalone WP:BLP. But relevant and appropriate content, measured against WP:UNDUE, can absolutely be maintained in the main election article, and Ryan's obviously needs to touch on the primary race as well — we just don't need a link to a standalone article about him as an individual. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I think Merge as noted above is the best coarse of action as well since the person in question doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN.Dolotta (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I was just getting ready to support the 'merge' option, but then I thought about the mechanics. Which article would this merge into? House Elections in Wisconsin is just a list, nobody would go there looking for this sort of information. Different aspects would be mentioned in the Trump article, the Ryan article, and the general November election article. All of these places, you would want to say just a few words, and link to more information. WP:BLP1E doesn't fit because there are now two important events, the primary and the PAC, both with national coverage. Still voting Keep. JerryRussell (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
United States House of Representatives elections in Wisconsin, 2016 would be an appropriate article to merge this info with. There is nothing wrong with adding prose to this article, and even though it may be in the form of a list now, it doesn't have to be. That is an article about an election, so if the events of the election are notable, we can and should list them there. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nationally-known figure though he did not win an election. Coverage on him is extensive and national.2605:6000:FB03:1F00:1901:C0B2:4598:DD9A (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: he will be more than entitled to a Wikipedia article once he wins an election. Quis separabit? 02:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep It appears to meet GNG, well referenced. There is no requirement to win an election ... just to have "significant coverage in reliable sources". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

New articles

User:AlexNewArtBot/ConservatismSearchResult. Page length= 94537

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