Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conservatives

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 20:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of conservatives

This list is not and has no potential to become encyclopedic. Conservatism is an exceptionally broad term which, in the Western world, encompasses a wide variety of doctrines, ideologies, and doctrines. In the United States alone it comprehends Paleoconservatism, Neoconservatism, and arguably Libertarianism. In a broader sense it can include any who today follows the doctrine of classical liberalism, depending on your point of view and which country you live in. Even worse, people can be conservative in one way but "liberal" in another. Some are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, or vice versa. This list, in order to be comprehensive, must ignore all of these distinctines and lump every possible sort of conservative together.

I would ask of anyone who votes to keep what value this sort of general list has. For the most part it's unsourced, and might possibly qualify as original research. This isn't like a list of office-holders, which can be independently verified and which has obvious utility. It's a list of people that are deemed conservative in some manner, or deem themselves conservative. There is something strange about a list which includes together Alfred Thayer Mahan, Margaret Thatcher, Michael Crichton, and Benjamin Disraeli. They're conservative for different reasons in different contexts. This list takes no account of someone like William Ewart Gladstone, who would seem "liberal" (in the American sense) in 1880 but would appear ultra-conservative today. In short, this list is unencyclopedic, subjective, unverifiable, and anachronistic, and I would argue that its very nature precludes rectifying these problems. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. What Mackensen said. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:01, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or drastically redefine (ditto on the reasons) --Doc (?) 01:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable, impossible to NPOV. God I hate lists. Fernando Rizo 01:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:07, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment perhaps a link from each of the people listed here (article) towards the conservative disipline that best desribes their philosophy or particular inclination. For instance, at the bottom of the William F. Buckley article, a link to Neoconservatives ect. ect. Hamster Sandwich 05:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Failing this, Delete as per Mackensen. Hamster Sandwich 05:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agreed w/ Mackensen. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly defined list. Flowerparty 13:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As per Mackensen. KeithD 18:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable and in a lot of cases inherently POV. --Idont Havaname 18:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is such a broad term that it must be POV MicahMN | Talk 23:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - conservative by what definition? - Skysmith 10:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - PoV and impossible to correct. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 10:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete, conservative is auto-NPOV, and that's me being conservative. Garrett^Talk 11:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too easily to dispute and PoV issues. CrazyC83 01:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POv unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 06:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 15:11, 29 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.