Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

Ossanda Liber

Ossanda Liber (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Portugal. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page is much longer than Nova Direita, perhaps it could be merged. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Moondragon21 When you translate an article, please check it. The tables of election results had broken templates and looked a mess. I have commented out that code, so the tables now look tidier, even though they don't have a coloured bar for the party. PamD 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an unsuccessful candidate not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think coverage of her activity as founder of the new party probably makes her notable. PamD 08:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Rankin (British politician)

Jack Rankin (British politician) (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)

Somewhat promotional biography of candidate for the upcoming UK election. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails
  WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — they must either win the election and thereby hold the seat, or already have some other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them a Wikipedia article anyway. But the former hasn't happened, and the latter hasn't been shown here at all. No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article now. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Hamer

Amelia Hamer (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)

Only claim to notability is being a candidate for the next Australian federal election. Sources cover her in the context of winning a party selection process. She is not notable by virtue of connection with notable family members. It is long-standing practice that we don't create articles for unelected election candidates. AusLondonder (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Australia. AusLondonder (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree and as is stated in
  WP:GNG, then, as stated in NPOLITICIAN, such people can still be notable. In connection with GNG, a range of sources from both within the article already, and from a Google Search show the article's subject meets the GNG criteria. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Nothing in the article demonstrates her notability inside or outside politics.--Grahame (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not independently notable outside a political candidacy, and we have a number of reasons to delete those sorts of pages. SportingFlyer T·C 00:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable for being a political candidate. Her activities at Oxford University hardly add to notability. Fails
  WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The subject article seems to be a
  WP:GNG.--Meligirl5 (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - TOOSOON and
  consensus can change, the longtime and frequent outcomes have been a long standing precedent. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Draftify: With the likely result being to delete, I request the article be drafted, in case the subject wins the election, in order to retain the edit history thusfar GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radical pro-Beijing camp

Radical pro-Beijing camp (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)

Blatant content fork of

• comment: my apologies for the linking issues which I've tried to fix. I think I may have had a slip-up with the capitalization of "camp" in one instance somewhere" Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) when editing the Radical pro-Beijing camp article; I fork of the "激進建制派" article in the Chinese Wikipedia. ProKMT (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to demonstrate not just that some members of the pro-Beijing camp are politically radical but that there is a distinct radical pro-Beijing camp. This is the issue. Your citations you've added refer to individuals as radicals but do not infer any connection among them in their capacity as radicals rather than as members of the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) - Although the article is a stub and not deserving of a separate page, it is an important political term and is easily coverable within the main article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, China, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Radical pro-Beijing [camp] is part of the pro-Beijing camp. However, "radical pro-Beijing" is a political term used in Hong Kong, and the article must be preserved because it is also detailed in the Chinese Wikipedia. It should never be merged into the Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) article, especially since it is necessary to describe radical organizations or politicians individually within the pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). ProKMT (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment please present reliable sources demonstrating this is a distinct political organization. Simonm223 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) per Royz-vi Tsibele's rationale - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the sources are low-quality or mention individual names only in passing. This is usually not sufficient to label someone as belonging to a certain camp. Vacosea (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hovde

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

Eric Hovde (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)

Does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Marquardtika (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Conservatism, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Subject does not yet demonstrate notability outside of the context of the 2024 election that he is running in, making this a
  WP:BIO1E consideration. If he wins in November, he'll be notable. If he loses, will he really be? I don't think so. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Draftify as subject is currently de facto expected primary winner barring death or a complete collapse of their campaign before August; the article needs more development. Nate • (chatter) 20:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment Said subject has now been endorsed by 45; only noting this in case we have to relist, still looking to draftify and develop this. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination says the subject "Does not meet
  WP:BIO1E
  ; by its own terms that rule ("cover the event, not the person") loosens considerably as the coverage of the event or person grows. Here, we're talking about sustained coverage of not only the race but of the subject himself.

Moreover, it's clear that the subject is notable for his involvement in a variety of endeavors with no substantial connection to the current campaign, such as:

• his efforts to drive a dive bar out of business,
• his economic forecasting,
• his investment activity and
• his Obama-era analysis of banking policy|.

70.167.90.50 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driving a dive bar out of business doesn't get you an article. Being in investment person isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A breakdown of the articles you cite: Rolling Stone: Coverage of a local real estate deal. Business Insider: The mention of Hovde Capital is trivial to the mention of Bill Ackman. That trivial mention is because of a New York Times guest column. New York Times: One-off guest columnist does not create notability under

WP:AUTHOR. OC Register: A brief mention in the buying of a bankrupt builder in a local publication in a local area where Hovde is at least a part time resident. You are more than welcome to revise the article add these sources. Maybe it'll influence editors the article should not be redirected or deleted.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete So it's PROMO. Outside of politics, he has barely a paragraph about his financial career, so I'm not seeing notability. He's not notable as a hedge fund person, there is only confirmation of political campaigns. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is notable as demonstrated through the over 22 sources cited. However the article needs work and should be fleshed out in regard to his business endeavors Microplastic Consumer (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Had this person become a
  alternative to deletion?Djflem (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

He has run for office twice--once in 2012 and once in 2024--so no. Marquardtika (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: article seems premature, could change as the campaign goes by. Though the article should definitely be deleted if he loses the primary in August, unless a suitable reason to keep it (or make a full article) emerges. Talthiel (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hovde has been in Wisconsin politics for longer than just 2024. He can also be considered a humanitarian, given his charity organization. I would also argue that Wikipedia is a site for information about people of importance. This page can be used to help people learn more about Hovde, not just as a politician but as a man as well. In short, Hovde is an important figure for his charity work and his political campaigns, and I argue his page should stay up as more people would continue to add to the page. AbsoluteKermity (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify, delete and/or redirect. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't already won — the notability test at
  run of the mill campaign coverage in the context of an election is not a notability-securing context. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Arguing the WP:NPOL rule is moot when you consider the criteria of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." In Wisconsin, where I live, Hovde is gaining considerable media coverage, and has been positioned as the most likely to win the Republican primary. While yes, it is not certain that he will win, if he does win it will be contradictory to recreate this article for him again. I will also argue his campaign is not run of the mill as you suggested, but holds many interesting aspects, including his positions on immigration and alcohol. AbsoluteKermity (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" is for mayors and city councillors, not unelected candidates for anything. And even winning the primary still wouldn't be grounds for an article: the baseline for recreation would be winning the general election in November. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's not even a good redirect target as there's absolutely no point to this article apart from the fact they were a failed candidate and even includes elections he thought about running in, but didn't. Absolutely not notable enough. SportingFlyer T·C 23:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are way smaller stubs about less notable political figures on Wikipedia, so I think it has merit to stay, at least in a greatly restructured form. Serious discussion for deletion should wait until after the primary on August 13th, with him winning or losing being the reason to delete or not. If he wins, he becomes a major party's nominee in a heavily contested Senate race, making him a notable political figure for at least the 2024 cycle. Him winning the nomination also gives him more media attention, and therefore more robust citations and factoids for the article. If he loses, I am fine with deletion and rolling it under 2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin page. Ultimately, we should wait until after the primary to make such a decision. Dillguy9 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Other stuff existing is literally an argument to avoid.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per others Cannolorosa (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: Subject does not meet the
  WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: he's currently the leading candidate for the Republican primary in Wisconsin, a state that elects a lot of Republicans. People will be looking him up. If he loses, we can delete it then. Mareino (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A US senate candidate is always of public interest and therefore notable. Considering that it is hard to get a comprehensive view of a candiate's stances and that campaign websites are inherently biased in favour of the candidate, it would be a loss to delete the article. 2003:E2:AF1B:5F01:9DA1:29C7:E339:C5D3 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC) lars 01:38, 4 April 2024 (CET)[reply]

The relevant question isn't "is he in the current news cycle right now?" — it's "if he loses the election and then never does anything else, so that having been an unsuccessful candidate in an election is his peak notability for all time, then will people still be looking for information about him 20 or 30 or 50 years into the future?" We're writing history here, not news, and just being a candidate in an election is not grounds for permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has received substantial coverage in reliable sources and its reasonable to assume it will be sustained coverage as he's the Republican nominee for a highly competitive US senate race. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The closing admin should note that there is a semi-viral tweet directing people here, hence the sudden influx of people. EoRdE6^(Talk) 00:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Off-wiki link in question: [1] - Skipple ☎ 00:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Fits the
  notability guidelines. Multiple sources cited in the article demonstrate reliable, significant coverage independent of the subject. This includes NBC News, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and HuffPost.--Panian513 00:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Draftify: As others have noted, he does not meet notability guidelines unless he wins. Mad Mismagius (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is not about the number of responses. The arguments and sources are not impressive. To keep such an article, make a stronger case based on police, reliable sources, and clear evidence of notability beyond simply running for office.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per AbsoluteKermity

(Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 14:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Draftify: just echoing what others have said, but he has no notability whatsoever outside of the context of the election, which already has its own article and covers all necessary information. if he becomes a Senator, this can be revisited. Griffindaly (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In all likelihood, Eric Hovde will be the Republican Party's nominee for United States Senate, thus giving him notability for now. Having his page up will keep voters in Wisconsin informed about him throughout the election. If he loses the election, then deleting the page would be appropriate. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC
• Delete There is no such thing as "notability for now" as it is not temporary. Even being the nominee doesn't meet
  WP:NPOL as he still would not be notable outside the campaign. If Hovde wins, then he would merit an article but he currently has not even won the primary. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Keep arguments are just special pleading not supported by references to Wikipedia's notablility guidelines. The general rule is that politicians don't get articles until they win, and insufficient evidence to justify a special case has been presented. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bernie Moreno isn't a politician, yet his page isn't up for deletion. MisterWeegee (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC) — MisterWeegee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to start Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Monero * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Redirect or merge to
  we should take this as an exception, please convince me. Bearian (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Usually, that is done in cases where the candidate wins the primary and is a nominee in the general election. Hovde is currently only a primary candidate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I come again to defend this. I don't see why the page should be taken down. Hovde is a businessman who also heads a charitable organization. If you argue he is not popular enough to notable enough to have a page, then I want to argue that it is hard to say what is and isn't notable. Via the

WP:NPOL guidelines, a candidate must have gained considerable coverage.^[a][b]

Hovde covers most, if not all the bases for somebody to have a page. I don't see any clear reason why it would be logical to delete a page that is not harming anybody by staying up. Wikipedia was founded to have free information for all, and it's best we stay to that. A page about Hovde can help people learn about him, and give them primary sources to learn about his policies and his background. AbsoluteKermity (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: AbsoluteKermity (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

Keep: I don't think we should be counting out Hovde just yet. It's very likely he'll win the Republican primary, and like others have said, if he wins the primary, but loses the general elections, then the page could be deleted. I don't see why the page has to be deleted just because he's "not someone notable." MisterWeegee (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually an argument for deletion, because we have a rule that once you're notable, you're always notable. If we'd delete him when he lost, that means he's not notable yet. SportingFlyer T·C 22:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And we aren't counting [him] out at all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirectto
  outcome. (also everything per Bearian and Bearcat) There are many Wikipedia policies that explain suggest why this project should not be a repository of campaign material, including no requirement for fairness. --Enos733 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  Lar Daly, or Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson) are a guide to what I am referring. Holvde's candidacy has received run of the mill coverage from national publications that any swing-state, statewide candidate would receive in a media climate where political hobbyists like me obsess over elections. It also over-relies on the AP article about his campaign further demonstrating the failure of significant coverage. This fails the significant coverage test. Sources should also be independent of the subject, for which the issues section fails. Anything that is not the AP article is his Twitter and his website. Businessman, financier, and banker, while all separate things, in layperson terms are redundant. If we take the extent of his business career as found in non-secondary sources via Google search at face-value, I cannot say it would fail GNG. However, that's not what the article is at present or has ever been. Nothing in any searches lead me to believe we should presume it can be established. The article also engages in a number of efforts to mask the lack of notability via "building a biography." Do we really need to know every time he chose not to run for office? That's ultimately trivial. Millions of people choose not to run every cycle. In the early life section, the bulk of it is information about his father who is not the subject of this article. Notability is not inherited by family ties alone. The likliehood he will be the Republican nominee is irrelevant as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We cannot have an article based on possible notability once election season really gets underway. Finally, as I always try to leave for candidate deletion discussions, an article about yourself is not a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

ATD please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. Redirecting is more appropriate per

Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES. To quote POLOUTCOMES, they are not moved to user space for fear of establishing a precedent that any premature article about an as-yet-unelected candidate for office can be kept in draftspace pending election returns, effectively making draftspace a repository for campaign brochures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs

)