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. 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conservatism/archive

Alexander Paul Burton (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)

Massive conflict of interest. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN playing in Covent Garden confers zero notability. Fails WP:NSPORTS and according to GPTzero AI generated. Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Sportspeople, Music, Conservatism, and Sexuality and gender. Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is due to multiple newspapers including those owned by news quest, a large UK newspapers corporation give multiple coverage and other news sources. Newsquest is owned by the American mass media holding company Gannett. It has 205 brands across the UK, publishing online and in print (165 newspaper brands and 40 magazine brands) and reaches 28 million visitors a month online and 6.5 million readers a week in print.

THanks for helping wiht this. It is appreciated. PeterLawriwBahan (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this article has too many problems. Gnu779 ( talk) 12:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter's argument is about the newspaper companies, not the significance of any coverage a given publication may have given to this person. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:NOTABILITY. The key words are significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. From what others are saying it's the "significant coverage" which is not being met. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete - The article is an attempted resume and resorts to refbombing to make his media coverage look more robust than it really is. News sources currently used in the article, when they are actually about him, are merely brief announcements of song/album releases in local alternative newspapers. Those are not significant enough to bestow notability. Most of the article's other sources are actually about events in which he was present, plus various non-reliable social media links. He has a lot of self-released music and is an active philanthropist, but he doesn't have the independent media coverage to justify copying his self-promotions here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the same results occur for Burton's stage name Tremolo A Tiempo. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources from Newsquest, a well-established and reliable UK news organization, along with coverage from CTV News, a major Canadian news outlet. In addition to these, multiple other newspapers have reported on this topic, supplemented by smaller media sources.

Per Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sources (WP:RS), mainstream news organizations, particularly reputable regional and national publications, are considered reliable for factual reporting. Newsquest and CTV News clearly meet this standard. Additionally, the presence of coverage across multiple independent outlets aligns with Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG), which emphasize "significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources."

If there is a dispute regarding the weight of certain sources, the correct approach under Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability (WP:V) is to discuss reliability on the talk page rather than dismissing valid coverage outright. This meets Wikipedia’s standards regarding press and PR and should be assessed in line with existing policies rather than subjective preference. PeterLawriwBahan (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever someone argues in this fashion, which happens rather often, I offer a personal story. I once received some brief coverage in a city newspaper because I had done some volunteer work. That newspaper was a reliable source, but my presence in it does not make me notable because that coverage was not significant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Switzerland, England, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Covent Garden is mentioned. And yes, one of the cited sources tells us "Having performed internationally, including in London’s Covent Garden, he....". If I had reason to believe that this was the opera house, I'd wonder about his performance there and what was written about it in reliable sources. But I think it instead means busking in the shopping centre that has occupied what was Covent Garden market. Now, busking is (or can be) an honourable profession: Lol Coxhill did it, and Coxhill's busking wasn't merely mentioned but instead described in a reliable source. At this and other points in this article, I don't see anything comparable for Burton. So delete. -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:PeterLawriwBahan has made a clear threat of legal action here [1]. Theroadislong (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That legal threat, in response to three words that someone added to Burton's article, clearly indicates a conflict of interest as PeterLawriwBahan created the article on behalf of his own client and is willing to sue to keep the text to his liking. Also note that the legal threat includes the phrase "our music". On this AfD page, PeterLawriwBahan's comments on keeping or deleting the article should be disqualified. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the reason for the deletion nomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.6.90 (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to log in when posting. It tells you in the nomination above..."Massive conflict of interest. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN playing in Covent Garden confers zero notability. Fails WP:NSPORTS and according to GPTzero AI generated." Theroadislong (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources from Newsquest, a well-established and reliable UK news organization, along with coverage from CTV News, a major Canadian news outlet. In addition to these, multiple other newspapers have reported on this topic, supplemented by smaller media sources.

Per Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sources (WP:RS), mainstream news organizations, particularly reputable regional and national publications, are considered reliable for factual reporting. Newsquest and CTV News clearly meet this standard. Additionally, the presence of coverage across multiple independent outlets aligns with Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG), which emphasize "significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources."

If there is a dispute regarding the weight of certain sources, the correct approach under Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability (WP:V) is to discuss reliability on the talk page rather than dismissing valid coverage outright. This meets Wikipedia’s standards regarding press and PR and should be assessed in line with existing policies rather than subjective preference. PeterLawriwBahan (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use AI to generate your responses here. Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about WP:SIGCOV: It appears that SCG (local), Voice, and Life Media lend significant biographical coverage of the subject, and go well beyond simply "he/this exists". That's not to say a bunch of iffy-to-crap refs and unsupported content shouldn't be removed for a better WP:WEIGHT. But that's more of a cleanup problem. JFHJr (㊟) 18:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Despite the COI concerns and legal threats, I initially wanted to stay uninvolved with the AfD, working with the editor to potentially locate reliable, significant, independent sources. For reasons mentioned above, that is no longer possible, so I'm officially making a delete vote since all significant coverage appears to be trivial, local, or unrelated to his notability as a musician. I would be open to revising my vote should sigcov be located. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VolatileAnomaly (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @VolatileAnomaly, how about the WP:THREE in my comment above? Otherwise, I can certainly understand your situation re blocked collaborator. I'll observe that if this subject is indeed notable, an article can be recreated under WP:NODEADLINES with the valid sources and without the WP:COI induced WP:REFDUMP in its history, and creation credit going to someone in good standing. JFHJr (㊟) 18:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned previously, I'm trying not to take into account the fact that the was blocked (in fact, I've had no involvement with them other than this AfD and reviewing their contribution history). My concerns regarding those sources stem from the fact that they are local publications (see category for Life media source) and don't provide a rationale for Burton's notability. In those articles I'm seeing references to his Spotify streams, Instagram followers, and his performance in Covent Gardens. There's no denying those articles provide verifiable sourced information regarding his biography, however. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 18:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, well, I don't want to monopolize or nit-pick this, so I'll follow up just once more before I move on :) We aren't supposed to source things to SPS like you pointed out, but unrelated reliable third parties definitely can, and that's their job: to stand between us and the BLPSPS. What makes it though their filter need not be discounted just because an RS made use of WP:PRIMARY. That's why we call them secondary sources to begin with. I think it's okay. And I thank you for your time and consideration and feedback here. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, now that the COI/UPE issue is no longer ongoing, what say you and @Theroadislong to draftifying and cleaning up (it gets deleted after 6 months if nobody cares)? JFHJr (㊟) 18:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Would not be opposed to a draftify as a second option. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 22:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per my comments above. This is a cleanup-or-new-history question for me. A tabula rasa for this namespace would not bother me, but the reasons therefor are not informed by WP:GNG/WP:42. JFHJr (㊟) 18:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete, per comments below. Thanks. JFHJr (㊟) 01:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm really not convinced the linked sources are actually independent. They read highly promotional (and we know there is aggressive promotion of this artist) and are highly similar to boot.
  The Voice:

  His music evokes the rugged coastal beauty, the rolling hills and the quiet yet powerful energy that shaped his creative journey.

  
  Life:

  Burton’s music evokes the rugged beauty of the Cornish coast, the rolling hills, and the quiet yet powerful energy that shaped his creative journey.

  JoelleJay (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think this really impacts independence; we have no indicia of association or collaboration between primary and secondary sources. However, an example of shitty journalism impacts WP:RS directly, and I remain open to reevaluating my judgments on them. I'll watch for more, but refrain from refactoring myself for now. JFHJr (㊟) 20:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The County Gazette is almost certainly a press release being published under a reporter's byline:

  With nearly one million Spotify streams a year, he is passionate about celebrating the beauty, resilience, and sense of belonging defining Somerset.

  He hopes Somerset (in Time) resonates with many in the community, offering a unique view on rural life and the journey of finding oneself across different worlds.

  With his new single, Alexander not only shares his personal journey but also celebrates the spirit of Somerset, hoping to connect with listeners both near and far.

  His story as a Somerset-born artist navigating various worlds through his music is one of resilience and creativity.

  I agree with Joelle that the other two sources are also probably not independent. Both of them seem like those magazines you'd pick up in a local supermarket that have a bunch of advertorials for local "creatives". voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You've both convinced me now. I'll strike and refactor. Thank you both! JFHJr (㊟) 01:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The sources discussed above are likely neither reliable nor independent for the reasons stated by Joelle and myself. I have been unable to find SIGCOV that meets NBIO. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Although it is a fact cited to a local newspaper, looking at music sites, I can't find any evidence that this subject has had over one-million streams in 2024. I realize this is a minor element of the article but it seems like quite an exaggeration. I saw figures more like 3,000-6,000. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with editors above that there no indication of the subject meeting relevant notability guidelines due to the lack of independent coverage. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 16:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: What a mess of primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NMUSIC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pointed out by several editors. Just because you got name-checked by local newspapers, who pay for stenography, it doesn't make you notable. It's the quality, not the quantity, of coverage that matters. Look, in 2025, it's untenable to argue otherwise, because everybody has at least a basic grasp that Wikipedia doesn't include everybody. Note that listing a discography - or anything related to a living person - is valid, if it's sourced or sourceable to a reliable source, which does not include the weekly pennysaver or a commercial website. I used to be involved in local politics, and every few months my name was mentioned in the Albany Times-Union, my state capital's newspaper of record, but that didn't make me notable. There's no problem with fans editing their favorite celebrity's article; for example, I took a candid photo of notoriously camera-shy Patty LuPone and added it to her article with a cute caption (wink wink, hint hint). There is a problem with abusing a charity like the Wikimedia Foundation. I used to teach my students how to identify and use good sources, and at this point, if you don't want to learn, then it's clear that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]