Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RIGHT)



Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where editors can easily ask questions, meet new colleagues and join A-Team collaborations to create prestigious, high quality A-Class articles. Whether you're a newcomer or regular, you'll receive encouragement and recognition for your achievements with conservatism-related articles. This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian.

  • Have you thought about submitting your new article to "Did You Know"? It's the easiest and funnest way to get your creation on the Main Page. More info can be found in our guide "DYK For Newbies."
  • We're happy to assess your new article as well as developed articles. Make a request here.
  • Experienced editors may want to jump right in and join an A-Team. While A-Class is more rigorous than a Good Article, you don't have to deal with the lengthy backlog at GA. If you already have an article you would like to promote, you can post a request for co-nominators here.
  • Do you have a question? Just ask

Alerts[edit]

Articles needing attention

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Other alerts
Deletion sorting/Conservatism

Conservatism[edit]

Drag panic[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Per WP:SNOW there is no chance this discussion will arrive at any other outcome.‎ Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Drag panic (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 describes social concerns about the exposure of drag to children as "hysteria," "moral panic," and "extremism." Regardless of whether one might be inclined to agree with such statements, there is not sufficient evidence to call one side of a very polarized political divide "hysterical." This article thus claims a seriously contested assertion to be fact, something which has a strong prohibition on it in WP:VOICE. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as by above: subject is clearly notable, and arguments about article quality, POV, or title are irrelevant.
Also, consensus for the article name already exists on the talk page: Talk:Drag_panic#Move_to_"Criticism_of_drag". Complaints about that should follow the requested moves process, not the AFD process, and should be done there.
See the statement of Daniel Rigal in the linked discussion. Further discussion of this should be done at the talk page. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the name stems from its use it reliable sources, as opposed to Fox News (see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS). The fact that a large number of reliable sources refer to it in this way is sufficient evidence that it's reasonable to characterize it that way. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Lewisguile (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability, and WP:IDONTLIKEITis not a valid reason to delete, nor is WP:FALSEBALANCE, by claiming no on has proved it is not a threat, it is down to those who claim there is a threat to prove there is one. Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep obviously notable topic. Skyshiftertalk 09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Even if the claims in the nomination were correct, which they are not, bias is not a reason for deletion. The topic is obviously notable. The hits in Google News and Scholar linked above are sufficient to demonstrate notability even before adding in synonyms. If there was a bias problem then that would be one to be fixed in editing, not in deletion. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this is clearly a Notable topic, and has good enough sources. Babysharkboss2 was here!! Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 13:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is pretty notable and it points out the opposition of drag, hence the name "drag panic" which is a moral panic. Obviously, the article is a bit opposed rather than neutral, but it doesn't mean the article should be up for deletion, it's just need a cleanup from various WikiProjects that are involved in it. Please know the editor is still new to this, remember it's a privilege to edit on Wikipedia. Now, for the name of article, @Félix An requested to rename the article to "criticism of drag" in which I disagreed, because no one else calls it that. Although, other editors from that discussion pointed out it's "overly broad" or "would be a completely different topic" since the article is about the opposition of drag. With the name not being suitable for the article, I do agree with @Helpful Raccoon's proposal to rename it "anti-drag movement". If the outcome is keep, it just need a cleanup and a name change so it doesn't be opposed and stays neutral. — JuanGLP (talk/contribs) 14:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: OP hasn't outlined convincing argument for deletion. Any problems outlined can be resolved with edits, if they exist. Topic clearly notable from looking at Google Scholar and media usage alone. Lewisguile (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that sometimes an article is so Broken that deletion is the only way to fix it (or to put it another way, there is nothing worth saving), but this is not one such article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is really disruptive and clearly "I don't like it." An old article may need improvement, but this one clearly passes GNG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic seems to be notable judging by media citations, and even ongoing laws. Maybe there exist some responses/pro-advocacy to add some or more WP:UNDUE. Although it is part of a deeper ongoing moral panic, perhaps, it can be retitled to "Criticism of Drag", "Drag hysteria", "Anti-drag movements" or "Drag and social responses". Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: This deletion attempt seems disruptive and driven by personal preference rather than objective criteria. I believe the article's content is factually sound. Even if minor revisions are needed, deletion is not the answer. Waqar💬 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are more than enough reliable sources to make this notable. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also if there's such WP:REQUESTMOVE to a bland tone Anti-drag movements I would concur it too. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the topic is clearly notable, not only for the number and quality of the sources, but also the fact that they document a phenomenon that is widespread enough that there are sources from many countries around the world. Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is heading for a snow close. Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Appeal to tradition[edit]

Appeal to tradition (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)

Very poorly cited and not at all neutral

Terry Long (white supremacist)[edit]

Terry Long (white supremacist) (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)

I could not find in-depth coverage. He ran for public office but does not meet WP:NPOL nor WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The author of this is a now-blocked sock puppet. The article has been here for 17 years, and only has 3 sentences. He doesn't even qualify as WP:SINGLEEVENT. We know he participated in one event where a cross was burned, but gives no details. He could have been just a spectator - or anything - we are not told. Given that the article claims, "he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta", sourced details are needed here. — Maile (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look at the sources I linked above? We aren't evaluating the condition of the current article but all sourcing that's available. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't even see coverage in Canadian sources. What's used now seem to be trivial mentions. Lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again, agree with Dclemens. Appears significant academic discussion of his role. Definitely seems notable and significant. Article should be improved with those sources, not deleted. Flatthew (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks[edit]

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
vieweditdiscusshistorywatch