Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional Conservatism

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 delete per either WP:NOR or WP:V—take your pick because in its current form at least one or the other applies. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional Conservatism

Constitutional Conservatism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article borders on patent nonsense. Google pops up only 832 results for the term "Constitutional Conservatism," so it is not a widely-used term. The term, "Constitutional Conservative" pops up 77,000 results, but again, this is either a term used in political rhetoric (not a scholarly term) or it's used to describe Originalism or Textualism in interpreting the Constitution. Since both are also advocated by some Liberal scholars, the term, "Constitutional Conservatism," is a contentious term and not particularly widely-used. The claim that the Founding Fathers were "pro-life, pro-religious freedom, pro-fair trade, pro-gun rights, and are almost universally strong supporters of private property rights," is an unscholarly, uncited, highly controversial, and wholly unfounded claim. Robocracy 12:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as it fails WP:V since there are no sources at all, except a single link to latterdayconservative.com, which doesn't seem very official to me. Jayden54 15:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This term does seem to be in some usage, but as it stands there isn't enough WP:NOR and WP:V material around to support even a stub. Possibly this is meant to advertise for the only external link in the article, which has no apparent bearing on the meaning of the term "constitutional conservatism". Sandstein 16:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Retain. Even though this is actually a redundant term because the essence of Conservatism includes a belief in strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution, it should be retained. In fact, this article should be expanded because the aspect of "Constitutionalism" in Conservatism is often taken for granted. Since the underlying principles upon which Conservatives base their belief system is the U.S. Constitution, and the current article on "Conservatism" lacks a detailed analysis of this aspect of Conservatism, this article should not only be retained but also should be expanded upon. Either that, or someone needs to undertake the task of adding a "Constitutional" description to the article on "Conservatism". Anyone who has read the "Federalist Papers" and related documents will easily find that the Founding Fathers were in fact, pro-States Rights, pro-religious freedom, pro-free market, pro-private property ownership, pro-Second Amendment to the extent that this included private ownership of weapons deemed basic to a people's-based militia, and the argument can be made that the Founding Fathers left matters like "abortion" as a matter for the States to determine legality. Since true "Constitutional Conservativism" is not something that is supported by true liberalism, it is a belief system that needs better clarification either as a stand-alone article or incorporated strongly into the article of "Conservatism". Even a small yet well-defined political party in the U.S. exists that is almost a perfect adherent to "Constitutional Conservatism". Check out: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php. The "U.S. Constitution Party" prides itself on following the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. So, in summary, this topic, whether it remains a separate article or is incorporated into Conservatism must be included as a basis for Conservatism. Jtpaladin 18:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that our articles must be written from a neutral point of view, and not be original research. This means we can't just have an article say, "this is constitutional conservativism because that's how one should read the Federalist Papers". Rather, an article on this topic would be along the lines of "Constitutional Conservatism in the U.S. is understood by a) this notable organisation to mean its political position, which is XYZ, as reported by this reliable source, b) a term used by notable theorist J. Doe to mean ABC, as reported by this reliable source, etc." Do you see what I mean? Oh, and another thing to keep in mind: Wikipedia is an international project. There are constitutions and conservatives in other countries than the U.S., too. Sandstein 19:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, clean up and source. It is an actual term, although in all reality it is a political neologism for a traditional or paleoconservative. Considering the vast usage of political neologisms in academic and jounalistic work their use, once about anyone with a published medium does so, is impossible to erase as a historical label. A member of the Constitution Party of the US, amoung others, are Constitutional Conservatives. Serge Trifkovic and Antonin Scalia can be described as Constitutional Conservatives. NeoFreak 19:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you if there were enough sourced information in this article to support even a one-sentence stub - but there isn't. And since I guess you're talking about the U.S., I suppose no U.S. Conservative would call themselves an "unconstitutional conservative", so this article would get rather unwieldy rather fast. Sandstein 20:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment just like no one is going to be anti-choice or pro-death? There are plenty of examples [1], [2], [3], [4] of the phrase being used although I do hate to make exceptions to the neologism guildline. Honestly. NeoFreak 20:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jtpaladin and Neofreak, as noted above, I recognize that the term is used in political discourse, and the term is a broad generalization about Conservatives' views of the Constitution. Well, being so, there's not enough to say about that to maintain an article. The entire article, if properly sourced, would contain one sentence only: "Conservatives in America tend to assert a belief in textualism, as a basis for their beliefs." Not exactly a lot of content. Also, as I also said, the term is ambiguous because there are people who agree the Constitution should be upheld literally as the text plainly says, yet share liberal views. And so, the article on textualism is sufficient, covering the topic in a politically neutral manner. In fact, in hindsight, I think it would've been better to simply edit the article and send a re-direct to textualism. Robocracy 21:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

QuestionDo you believe that the term is not used or unique enough to warrant a stub or do you think it is just a misused neologism that has a POV slant? Honest question. NeoFreak 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Both. Robocracy 22:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without the actual citations to sufficient independent and reliable sources, this neologism can not be adequately verified.-- danntm ^T _C 22:24, 25 November

2006 (UTC)

Jtpaladin, please do not remove or edit my comments, as it is considered a form of vandalism. If you have a comment about a comment of mine, please place it at the bottom. Also, please do not attempt to vote more than once. Thank you. Robocracy 14:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Robocracy, I did not remove any of your comments. I find that untrue and insulting. I only responded to your comments directly under where you made them. If you don't want direct answers, simply state it and I will not do it. Your claim to vandalism is inappropriate considering the meaning of "Vandalism" in Wikipedia. If you have a more direct reference to vandalism and the method which I chose to respond, please direct me to it. Nevertheless, all your objections simple fly in the face of fact as I demonstrated in my responses. Jtpaladin 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jtpaladin, again, please stop trying to vote more than once. You originally put your comments above within my comments and beyond that, you deleted some of my own original comments. If this was an accident, then okay. But you can take a look at the edits you made right here. Robocracy 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If I deleted any of your comments, it was certainly by accident. Surely though, even though I appreciate your removal of the word "Retain" from more than one comment I made, you removed other comments that were not in your authority to remove. I restate them: "since there are numerous citations to verify the standing of this topic. Without objection, I would be happy to start filling this topic with statements and citations." Jtpaladin 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete in spite of Jtpaladin's assurances that xe "would be happy to start filling this topic with statements and citations", xe hasn't. Apart from the inexplicable failure to mention that "Constitutional Conservatism" favours Mom's apple pie, blue skies, sunshine, and fluffy bunnies, it could hardly be clearer that this is an unnecessary neologistic fork of the {{globalize}}-needing Textualism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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.