Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secular 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secular conservatism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be original research, no sources have been provided. --TFD (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per TFD, unsourced stub since 2010 and doesn't seem to be an established term anywhere else. A similar page is Secular Right. Citobun (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I have added it above. TFD (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I turned up a source by Chip Berlet that documents this, alongside the "theocratic right" and the "hard right", with 3 minutes' use of Google Books. I then turned up a later work that cited and used Berlet's terminology. What on Earth made you think that this wasn't a term? Did you look anywhere? The article is amateurish and crap. But that's a reason to show your mad skillz as encyclopaedia writers, by mercilessly making the article better and demonstrating that people with accounts are here to write rather than sit in armchairs and tag. It's not a reason to take the no-effort route, not put in the effort of looking for sources onesself, and proceed to AFD. Get Berlet 1998, p. 250–252 and Downing 2002, p. 137 in hand and write! And try to read some of the several sources that document this in relation to the European Union, which are just as easy to locate, too. Uncle G (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Berlet, Chip (1998). "Who Is Mediating the Storm? Right-Wing Alternative Information Networks.". In Kintz, Linda; Lesage, Julia (eds.). Media, Culture, and the Religious Right. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816630851.
- Downing, John D.H. (2002). "International Communication and The Extremist Right". In Pendakur, Manjunath; Harris, Roma M. (eds.). Citizenship and Participation in the Information Age. G — Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781551930350.
  - There is a difference between a term and a noun modified by an adjective. A term has a specific definition and is used consistently by different authors. No one doubts that one can be conservative and secular. Can you provide a source that defines the "term" and explains its origins and use by different authors? And please don't say it means a conservative who is secular. TFD (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point about not looking and no effort is made yet again. I just did. Two, in fact. Complete with exact page numbers. Now go and read what you've been pointed at, and look at the further sources that discuss secular conservatism in the EU which are dead easy to find simply with some applied effort. It's a matter of mere minutes, as I said. Uncle G (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources and they all use the terms differently. However your two sources (here are their links: [1][2]) do seem to have a specific concept. Downing says, "Berlet proposes we categorize the extremist right into the secular conservative right, the theocratic right and the "hard right." Effectively, the secular conservative right would cover groups with strongly reactiionary views but normally working electorally and and without recourse to terrorism. Within the U.S. this would signify a spectrum from the Heritage Foundation to the John Birch Society. In France in would cover the Front Natiional, in Italy the Alleanza Nationale, in Austria the Freedom Party, in Britain the British National Party, in Russia Zhirinovsky's [Liberal Democrats], and One Nation in Australia.

Is your suggestion that this article should be about Berlet's category? In that case it fails WP:NEOLOGISM. It would be better to have an article about Chip Berlet's theory of the "extremist right". Ironically no one has bothered to add anything about this to his article.

Even if we were to follow this path, it would mean blanking the article, since it is about an entirely different topic and does not mention Berlet, and starting again. Much better just to delete and if someone wants to write it then they can do so. Are you going to do that?

TFD (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the term Berlet uses is "secular conservative right", not secular conservatism. Is it the same thing? Should we merge the articles Secular conservatism and Secular Right and perhaps re-name it? TFD (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears from the sources to be an established concept, but I do think Secular conservatism and Secular Right should be merged (the latter into Secular conservatism). Ithinkicahn (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a non-notable neologism (at best). An attempt to lay out a concept to juxtapose to social conservatism. The non-notable neologism Secular Right is a similar effort to create a phrase from whole cloth to juxtapose to Religious Right. There are traditional forms of conservatism that do not base themselves around religion; this ideology and movement isn't commonly called either of these things, and a merge of the two non-notable neologisms to make a somewhat longer dictionary definition stub is inappropriate. Carrite (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That not all conservatives are religious, or that the Relgious Right does not comprise the entire Right, though true, is not by itself justification for an article. This is not a specific topic. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TFD and Carrite. WP:OR. --Bejnar (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC) In case I wasn't clear, delete all three. --Bejnar (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2014 (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.