Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conservatism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Conservatism. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Conservatism|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Conservatism. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Conservatism

Love, Faith, Hope

AfDs for this article:
Love, Faith, Hope (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Was a soft delete back in 2022, recently undeleted without improvement. 3 of the 4 sources in the article do not even mention the subject. I'll quote the previous nominator's (Vacant0) rationale, since it still applies: "I've only found passing mentions such as: attendance of a protest during the 2022 North Kosovo crisis, announcement that they will take part in the 2022 Belgrade City Assembly election (they ended up placing second to last with only 5,000 votes), an anti-government event that was organized by its leader (Nemanja Šarović) and the announcement that Šarović formed this movement. Additionally, this movement has not been represented in any legislature since its foundation, and it seems to entirely be focused on the actions and announcements of its leader (its facebook page can be also seen as proof of this besides these sources that I've listed)." Onel5969 TT me 12:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scaife Foundations

Scaife Foundations (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)

Sufficiently lacks WP:SIGCOV altogether despite current grouping structure. Notability is not inherited from founders who do receive some local press coverage for interfamilial litigation over estates that mentions subject(s) in passing. All else is WP:ROUTINE for philanthropic organizations. SunnyLetO (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Cooper (podcaster)

Darryl Cooper (podcaster) (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)

This article was deleted after a discussion in September and there are no new sources. Old version. Previous discussion. New version includes false promotional language like "Cooper is a writer for The American Conservative and has contributed to Tablet Magazine" (1 article at AC, 0 at Tablet), unsourced sections, and no mention of past statements like "FDR chose the wrong side in WW2" and Hitler not being in hell. This is still a WP:BLP1E, the only difference is that the new version pretends otherwise and uses promotional framing for his views. Tagging from previous discussion: Isaidnoway Xegma Wcquidditch Chaimanmeow Liz ArmenianSniper Googleguy007 AusLondonder Gusbenz Cosmokiwi LizardJr8 Lostsandwich The_Four_Deuces Osomite Wyattroberts A._Randomdude0000 FeldBum Seefooddiet John_Z Kriddl Donald_Albury Andol HonestManBad Kimdime Hemiauchenia Sandstein. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I have this article watchlisted because I do generally think it's wise to keep an eye on the pages of holocaust deniers so that we can avoid Wikipedia hosting, you know, holocaust denial, but this guy's definitely a good example of WP:BLP1E. While I do think it's good for Wikipedia to cover notable pseudohistorians, including notable holocaust deniers, I don't think we need to have a page for every holocaust denier with a Podcastle subscription. Should evidence be presented this man is a more significant holocaust denier then I guess I'll go back to keeping him on my watchlist but otherwise I think deletion is the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also tagging @Hemiauchenia @Tsarstvovanie @Ekozie @Sweetstache @Kungigult from old page. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 While Cooper gained noterietay from the Carlson interview, the number of sources since the last article was deleted in September have increased. Aside from receiving 10s of millions of views on popular shows & podcats like Carslon and Rogan, Cooper hosts 2 popular podcasts of his own and has a substack with over 160k subscribers. I think that this page is clearly unfinished and some of the sourcing should be fixed. It also entirely focuses on his recent comments with Carlson and Rogan. This is a better argument to expand the page than to delete it. Cooper's popularity is clearly growing, he does now fit the criteria for a notable person. I think it is important for wikipedia to cover this person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Showing up as a guest in the walled garden of right-wing podcasts isn't an automatic indication of notability nor is having a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but his popularity is. Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. Many of Cooper's associated personalities are equally as notable and have wiki pages. Comic Dave Smith for example. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison to Dave Smith (comedian) is actually a good one for demonstrating why Cooper is not notable. Smith has many reliable sources talking about a variety of actual event appearances such as festivals and such. His advocacy for Trump made it into Reason for goodness sake. The SPLC has a profile on Smith and has documented his conflict with the holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Dave Smith is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards because reliable sources treat him as such. Showing up on Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan while being a far-right podcaster is not intrinsically notable. Having a blog is not intrinsically notable. In fact the contrast between Cooper and Smith reinforces why we should not have a page about Cooper. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So then your argument is that being different and notable is not different and notable enough to be delineated on a website that literally is about informing people how things are different and notable. Your argument is just talking in circles. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Merge My opinion hasn't really changed here, eventhough the article has grown. Nearly all of the citations fall into two groups: first-party/non-notable, like the subject's substack or podcast homepage, or specifically about a single opinion/appearance--and all from September 2024. There are now two citations about a second podcast appearance, this time on Joe Rogan, but it's still basically the same problem; the subject is only notable when he makes a fuss or controversial statement on someone else's program. Basically, when you get down to it, this is person is known for two slightly viral moments. I know that BLP2E isn't a "real" policy around here, but this feels more like an extension of BLP1E. I'm assuming the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines; I just don't think here's there yet based on the current article. --FeldBum (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neill Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[[[Neil Ferguson]] more an “anti-historian”[1] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neil Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[2] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. The previous article only focused on the Tucker Interview, which is why it was considered WP:BLP1E. Cooper’s work has been widely discussed in major outlets including The Times (UK), Vox, Axios, Yad Vashem, and The Free Press, which reflects the notability standards set by Wikipedia for public figures. Additionally, many of the personalities he associates with such as comic Dave Smith have wikipedia pages despite equal noterietay at best. These factors—his independent contributions to historical analysis, his partnerships with notable figures, and his coverage by reliable secondary sources—clearly demonstrate that Cooper meets the criteria a notable person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore there are already Darryl Cooper articles in German and French [7] Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete here's very little reliable sourcing for Cooper except that he is a podcaster who made several controversial appearances on right-wing talk shows promoting holocaust denial. These controversies are best covered in articles about the hosts.
TFD (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So wealthy well-connected podcasters get the social credit, but the minions get a little blurb that will be deleted by the Wikipedia Hatekeepers when they want to feel powerful, because they are meaningless humans otherwise. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A certain level of prudence is required to productively apply notability guidelines. Cooper is a writer and podcaster with a large audience who has been involved in several controversies. This is enough for him to be notable, and the point of notability guidelines is fundamentally to filter out what's not notable. Not to provide material for (admittedly) politically-motivated quibbling over alleged edge cases as if the norms themselves were the point. Note also the almost inevitable meta-level political bias that sneaks in when editors are free to apply different levels of scrutiny to different topics based on their own biases. A serious effort to remain unbiased would involve opening discussions on politics-related articles with an encouragement for users to check their biases at the door - instead we have editors more or less stating that they are here to enforce their political preferences. Anyway, it's three events now and it was two events last time when WP:BLP1E was applied. HonestManBad (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The three "events" are two podcast appearances and a bad tweet. We do retain articles on notable nazi podcasters like Christopher Cantwell this guy just isn't as significant as him. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bad in any way that's relevant to this discussion. It's not a single tweet but a thread of 35 tweets - an article of sorts, you could say - not that it matters. The reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that happens on Twitter matters at all no many how many tweets were in a thread. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on Twitter is not relevant to this discussion. HonestManBad (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that a tweet, even a thread, does not constitute a distinct event for BLP1E purposes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. Again, the reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: BLP1E doeesn't apply because there are at least 4 events that have received coverage in secondary sources: 1) The 1/6 tweets, 2) the Hitler tweet, 3) The Tucker Carlson appearance, and 4) The Joe Rogan appearance. While it is true that none of these in themselves would make someone notable, the fact that these events have been covered in secondary source does. Additionally, Cooper has tens of thousands of paid subscribers on Substack, making him one of the highest earners on the site.[8] Mr. Squidroot (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a podcaster interacting with other podcasters and making some noise for bigoted tweets is not proof of notoriety. The article also seems like a puff piece. A lot of sources are subpar, unreliable, and some were also pulled from ChatGPT. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leftist talking points and elitism isn't a policy-based argument. JDiala (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost none of these keep !votes have any relevance to our notability guidelines. Do we have WP:GNG/WP:NBIO here or not? That's the question at hand. Getting a lot of attention on social media or having a highly subscribed Substack are not relevant to WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, I mentioned in my "Keep" !vote that the article passes GNG based on the availability of the reliable sources. That includes The Washington Post and others. The first relist was warranted, but this second one now is unjustified and the article should be closed as a "Keep" IMHO. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even realize there was doubt about whether the subject meets WP:GNG. There are many reliable sources. Here's a couple from a quick google search [9][10]. My comment about the Substack subscribers was addressing the appeal to WP:BLP1E which only applies to low profile individuals. Both this delete discussion and the first one from September centered on BLP1E so you didn't see comments addressing GNG since that didn't seem up for question. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Conservatism&oldid=1285230152"