Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Conservatism)
"WP:RIGHT" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:Right (disambiguation).



Shortcut

Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where editors can easily ask questions, meet new colleagues and join A-Team collaborations to create prestigious, high quality A-Class articles. Whether you're a newcomer or regular, you'll receive encouragement and recognition for your achievements with conservatism-related articles. This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian.

  • Have you thought about submitting your new article to "Did You Know"? It's the easiest and funnest way to get your creation on the Main Page. More info can be found in our guide "DYK For Newbies."
  • We're happy to assess your new article as well as developed articles. Make a request here.
  • Experienced editors may want to jump right in and join an A-Team. While A-Class is more rigorous than a Good Article, you don't have to deal with the lengthy backlog at GA. If you already have an article you would like to promote, you can post a request for co-nominators here.
  • Do you have a question? Just ask

Alerts

[edit]
Articles needing attention
Conservatism articles needing expert attention
Jatiya Party (Ershad)
Douglas Murray (author)
National conservatism
Bart Jan Spruyt
Doug Wardlow
Bill Whatcott

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Other alerts
Deletion sorting/Conservatism

Conservatism

[edit]

The Peel Club

[edit]
The Peel Club (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 WP:CLUB, not a seemingly national organization, nor has it received reliable and independent coverage from secondary sources. Only able to find primary sourcing via the subject's website and some selfhost/blog sites. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 02:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 02:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The selfhost/blog site secondary source is the website of a professional historian (Laura Adkins) and published author (Kateryn Parr: Henry VIII's Sixth Queen ISBN: 9781399082853) which did a feature article on the The Peel Club as a sole subject matter.
    Another major listed source, Historic UK, is a huge online website with over one million visitors per month for verified mainstream information, and writes about Robert Peel, the namesake of the The Peel Club in question, and references its archives of nationally-important history, with images also.
    Both these sources are high quality, independently verifiable channels, which meet the criteria of Wikipedia. What flags suspicion or illegitimacy here is the selfhost/blog site type domain (as the algorithm already warned), but that type of web hosting format is the technical preference of the historian/journalist in question, and must be respected. It should be manually checked and the article read, but this flag for deletion arises from a source moniker standing out, and not from a manual check of the source article which is legitimate.
    Lastly, The Peel Club is a sister institution of the Carlton Club and shares the same status as a national organisation, being that it is a secondary club-within-a-club there at 69 St James's Street, London SW1A 1PJ. The petition for page deletion is contested on these several grounds argued. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Fails WP:NCLUB" -- this test citation is a football association rating system to determine club notability. The page in question The Peel Club is a social private members' club for dining, not sports nor sporting team or football. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the cited policy, the shortcut was not NCLUB but is instead WP:CLUB. You can review this policy instead and go from there. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 03:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original link was to WP:NCLUB, did you adjust it? I have checked WP:CLUB and the test is met and satisfied by the responses provided in my original reply. If not solely just from being part of the Carlton Club as a subsidiary brand. Potentially, the closing administrator might decide on a Merged Subject with the Carlton Club page, but The Peel Club page will likely be recreated in the near future anyway due to the high profile nature of its members being British Government figures, and very high probability of increased media coverage. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the test is met and satisfied by the responses provided in my original reply The sources currently on the page are primary sources, and what you have given is no different than what is already on the page. Per the policy on primary sources, Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. I also find the Historic UK source unconvincing as a secondary, reliable source. The Wordpress site you linked below is not only not currently on the page, but Wordpress is considered generally unreliable except in uses for uncontroversial descriptions and when used by subject-matter experts.
If not solely just from being part of the Carlton Club as a subsidiary brand Notability is not inherited; something is not notable just because it is in proximity to something that is notable. We rely on the general notability guidelines and subject notability guidelines (in this case, the subject notability guideline on organizations, and specifically clubs, as in the deletion proposal) to tell when something is notable, and just being part of something that is does not confer notability. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been editing multiple pages to seemingly create a presence for ‘The Peel Club’ on Wikipedia. It appears this is a promotional activity and a review of their edit history will show this. There is no evidence of any formal link to the Carlton Club. The organisation appears to be very new and does not have evidence of public relevance. Cylinder8837 (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect, I have been resolving the orphan page warning requirements demanded of the single one page for The Peel Club created in good faith, that became defective without related article ties. The ties made were methodical, logical and perfectly appropriate. The other page edits, again, are NOT promotional, if not because promo and awareness of an ostensibly secret club is moot and without reward. Moreover, the purpose of adding the information to related pages was advised by OrphanPage flag to stop it being deleted. So, again, it would seem admins are looking for a boogeyman where there is not one. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary source of 'wordpress' is indeed in the page sources:[1] and there are 4 in total with 2 being secondary and two being primary. I can see all of the sources on the page, yet you are saying they are not present. The historian's article which is a reliable source about the club is entitled: "Ceremony, Robert Peel and Clubland" in the hyperlink preview. It is the third source down.
With regards to the notability test cited by way of affiliation not being heritable, that's fair enough, however the general grounds of two secondary sources are met, which was originally advised by moderator Paul w. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I am uneasy about the assertion that "The Peel Club page will likely be recreated in the near future anyway due to the high profile nature of its members being British Government figures, and very high probability of increased media coverage." No reliable sources are given regarding the "British Government figures" (who?) while the 'probability' is pure WP:Crystalball speculation. Paul W (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not a mod, just a long-time editor, fyi. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. It appears these links are written by someone in 'The Peel Club', it would follow that the user who is attempting to add this page to wiki is the author of those too. Cylinder8837 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or, if it is a spin-off from the Carlton Club, merge): I had reservations about the article's sourcing when it was originally posted on 12 June 2024 (I draftified it). In addition to previous points made, the Adkins article is an interview (which may not be reliable, per WP:IV), and may also be the result of PR/marketing endeavour (so may be additionally unreliable - per User:Oaktree b's PROMO comment). Paul W (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks

[edit]
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
view • edit • discuss • history • watch
  1. ^ lozadkins (2024-08-11). "Ceremony, Robert Peel and Clubland". The Local History Blogger. Retrieved 2024-08-15.
  2. ^ "The Peel Club". The Peel Club. Retrieved 19 August 2024.
  3. ^ "Sir Robert Peel". Historic UK. Retrieved 19 August 2024.
  4. ^ "The Peel Club – History and Legacy". For the Love of History. Retrieved 19 August 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism&oldid=1234795474"