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 move to Timeline of post-World War II American conservatism. (If you can come up with a better move target, by all means bring it up on the talk page.) As the article stands, there is a pretty clear consensus to delete, as conservatism is poorly defined on a timescale encompassing all of modern history. However, restricting its scope to only the time period in which the modern definition of "conservatism" applies is sufficient to address many of "delete" !voters' concerns. If anyone feels that the new article should still be deleted, feel free to renominate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of conservatism

Timeline of conservatism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research and content fork of Conservatism. Since conservatism is an ambiguous concept, any article that tries to provide a timeline will be inherently original research. We must determine what events should be included and what weight should be given to them. There is no timeline provided as a source and there are disagreements among historians. TFD (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TFD (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article cannot be anything but synthesis and original research as there is no cited timeline used as basis. Binksternet (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. About 90% of the article is unsourced, but that's only the beginning. The major problem is that many events in this list aren't clearly related to conservatism. It's original research to include those events in this list. For example: 1987 June 12: In Berlin, President Ronald Reagan challenges Mikhail Gorbachev to Tear down this wall! How is this event related to conservatism? Here what Reagan said in that speech: ....General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate... --В и к и T 12:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 100% of the entries in the article are wikilinked. Ample sources for these entries can be found at the target articles. Just a matter of incorporating the sources from the target. Regarding entries that may or may not be WP:OR: once the editors at the talk page refine the inclusion criteria OR problems will subside.– Lionel (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Three reliable sources have just been added which discuss the topic conservatism and provide detailed timelines of conservatism. See (1) Allitt, (2) Carlisle and (3) Story in Further Reading. Conservatism is a common topic of study and many political science textbooks at the university level contain timelines specific to conservatism. – Lionel (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list now contains mutiple sources which cover the topic substantively. The list now passes WP:LISTN. While not conceding that this topic is "ambiguous," we have no policy which suggests or requires the deletion of "ambiguous" topics. However if a topic is ambiguous, WP:DUE requires that it "represents all significant viewpoints." This bolsters the argument that articles should not be deleted merely because they are ambiguous. Regarding "determining what events" to include that is easily handled by examining reliable sources. In any event discussions about entries are best left to the editors at the talk page: AfD is not the proper venue to determine what entries should or should not be in a list.

    This timeline is a powerful compliment to Conservatism and has great encyclopedic value. – Lionel (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see these sources. I checked each one listed in the references, but perhaps I missed them. To pass WP:LISTN, we need a source which discusses the topic "as a group or set". None of the 7 listed in the references do. What source fills that criteria?   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the Bibliography. These histories cover conservatism in detail and also contain timelines. As the article is developed inline citations will be added. Right now they satisfy WP:N. – Lionel (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be notable as a topic. Appears to be sourced. Appears to be nicely replete with bluelinks. The guideline states: A Timeline is a graphical representation of a chronological sequence of events. which appears to be met. OR clearly does not apply as the readers are able to use the wikilinks for each topic, and no claims are made about the list other than that each item fits into the timeline. Collect (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:LISTN, which states "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set". It seems clear that the article was compiled via original research, perhaps by searching google for "important conservative events" and dumping everything that came up. While these individual problems could be addressed via normal editing (such as by removing poorly sourced entries), we have no RS stating these items are interconnected, or that, indeed, there even exists such a notable timeline. There is also no clear inclusion criteria for the article. What constitutes an "important event in conservative history"? Without sources telling us, the answer to that question is inherently OR. Consequently, the article should be deleted unless (or until) sources can be provided which detail the timeline themselves, without the subjective interpretation and synthesis of our editors.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Um - by your standard absolutely no "timeline" for any topic would be allowed <g>. The fact is that "conservatism" per se is a "notable topic" which has a history over a number of years -- are you seriously asking that reliable sources be given to establish that the history of a topic covers a range of years? I would hope not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain how the lineline could handle something like the example I provided below. TFD (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs cleanup, as most AfDs do, but the subject is notable and it passes WP:LISTN. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a clear case of original research. there are no sources saying these are noteworthy or key events in the history off conservatism, which is already a term with so many different meanings in different cultures, countries and eras as to be unsuitably vague for building a clear-cut timeline. The items are arbitrary, with no objective reason for their inclusion. A typical case it the entry for the appoint of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. Is he the only conservative judge worthy of note since 1500, anywhere in the world? Obviously not. Was Michael Steele a notable conservative in the scheme of things? Not at all: he was an unpopular head of the U.S. Republican Party for a couple of years. I think that it is impossible to write an article at this title which will follow all three core content polices: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, and so it should be deleted.   Will Beback  talk  07:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example The American Revolution is just one of many examples of where ambiguity makes it impossible to write a neutral timeline. Lionelt's sources for example provide conflicting timelines. Note that the terms liberal and conservative did not come into general usage until the 1830s and in the U.S. until after 1945. Do we describe the revolution as a conflict between:
    • a liberal empire and liberal colonists
    • a conservative empire and conservative colonists
    • a conservative empire and both conservative and liberal colonists
    • a liberal empire and conservative colonists
    • a liberal empire and both liberal and conservative colonists
    • a liberal-conservative empire and liberal colonists
    • a liberal-conservative empire and conservative colonists
    • a liberal-conservative empire and both liberal and conservative colonists
    • TFD (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete greatly restrict scope and rename: Without any secondary sources on which to base the timeline, it's difficult to gauge what should and should not be included. Does anything that has been described as conservative merit inclusion? Is this only a political timeline, or does it include economic and religious conservatism. How does environmental conservatism fit into the timeline? How about energy conservation? The real concern is that this article would just become a WP:COATRACK of topics included on the basis of whim as opposed to sourcing. Given these potential pitfalls related to OR, I suggest the article content be greatly restricted to focus on a specific era and brand of conservatism. Possible examples: Timeline of 20th century American political conservatism, Timeline of American Cold War political conservatism. aprock (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that more than anything, the sources should generally be restricted to published timelines from secondary sources. Much of the OR/SYNTH/COATRACK issues can be resolved in this manner. This means excluding tables of contents, and editor constructed timelines based on their own reading of one or another book. If there are no such timelines in any of the sources, I suggest redirecting the article to Conservatism until some are found. aprock (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Timeline of American conservatism". It's clear that the timeline is heavily focused on post-WWII American conservatism, so why not just own it? It's hopeless to write a "Timeline of conservatism", because, as others have pointed out, the scope of the topic is too vague and impossible to define. It's largely impossible to agree on what "conservatism" means across 500 years and numerous cultures.

    Right now, the article already seems to be focused mostly on presenting a favorable view of American conservatism (for instance, conservative opposition to the civil-rights movement seems like a rather notable omission). The one-sidedness is a function of the editorial pool and can be fixed with more diverse participation, but the problem of focus remains. Again, I would just move this to Timeline of American conservatism, which is a much more focused and clearly delineated topic, and one where a timeline would actually be encyclopedically valuable. MastCell Talk 19:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion sounds good with the caveat that if it's going to be about "post-WWII American conservatism", the title should reflect that, possibly Timeline of post-WWII American conservatism. Given the constantly shifting nature of the meaning of "conservative", it might be better to delineate both endpoints as well as restrict the topic somewhat: Timeline of 20th century American political conservatism. aprock (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Lionelt presented Story and Bruce's Rise of Conservatism in America, 1945-2000 as a source that presents a timeline. TFD (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Notable enough for its own page, even with a lack of sources. Mostly appears to be an attempt to get rid of an article by editors that may disagree with conservatism. Toa Nidhiki05 02:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes no sense - if a topic has no sources then it's non-notable and impossible to write about. Also, please remember to assume good faith.   Will Beback  talk  05:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • [1] is a review of a book specifically dealing with a timeline consept for American conservatism at least (multiple notable reviews on that book, by the way). There appear to be boks on the topic such as [2] and so on. Additionally, the only real WP requirement here is that Conservatism be notable - anything which has a history behind it has a "timeline" possible for it - and the timeline does not need to be separately notable by any WP guideline or policy I can find. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your first source is a review of a book about conservatism in the U.S., and the reference to "timeline" actually means history. Your second source is a book from ICON Group International that lists all the sources that use the term conservatism over a 2500 year time period. Do you think you could read your sources before presenting them. TFD (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since I specifically said it was a review, I wonder why you felt the need to act as though I had not called it a review. The fact is this All timelines are is a sequential list of events in the history of a topic. That is what a "timeline" is. And that is true of all the "timeline" articles on Wikipedia. If a topic is notable, its history is notable. A "timeline" is simply a chronological view of the material related to that history - and clearly does not neet separate notability, and, in fact, none of the "timelines" on Wikipedia would come close to separate notability! Thus that argument is not only not based on any policies or guidelines, it fails on a simple reductio argument. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is a little confusing. Are you saying that you don't need to have a sourced timeline on which to base the wikipedia article? But rather, you can take any history book and use it's content to determine what to include/exclude in the timeline? aprock (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Allitt claims that the U.S. has a conservative tradition that pre-dates 1945 and argues that certain Americans, such as Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were conservatives. But his opinion is not definitive, some people call Lincoln a "liberal" and TR a "progressive". Do you agree with Allitt or are you just supporting an article that you know will lead to controversy? TFD (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet the criteria for WP:LISTN, and it seems the article is totally subjective leading to original research and synthesis. Who is to say what is liberal or conservative throughout history, especially considering the changing definitions? Dave Dial (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Will Beback. This is a tough call for me, in part because I believe that there could be the possibility of something encyclopedic somewhere in there, and partly because I see some merit to the arguments for renaming, per aprock and MastCell. But look: the prominent treatment given to Clarence Thomas, while Felix Frankfurter, among a great many other possible names, is absent, points to a WP:UNDUE problem that may simply be insurmountable. Currently, the page reads as though "let's just rush through that early Edmund Burke stuff, so we can get to the good stuff about Sarah Palin". This page has become the new Militant atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2011 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_conservatism
No tags for this post.