Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A List (Conservative)


 * 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The result was   keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A List (Conservative)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Relies on a single source (blog), not reported in any TV or print media and is potentially libellous. The Conservative Party themselves haven't admitted the existence of such a thing. Qu e ntin Smith 18:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It currently references one blog, but it could use loads of sources:, , , , , etc.  The Conservative Party would not be a reliable source for commenting on the existence of the list, so Wikipedia is agnostic to their comment or lack thereof.  If the current content is 'potentially libellous', you should remove the parts that are in violation of Wikipedia policy.  The article, however, is not inherently against those rules, and, therefore, it is not grounds for deletion. Bastin 22:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Not reported in any TV or print media"? Did you even bother to look? – iride  scent  01:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is evidently a notable subject. What is remarkable is that the article was so neglected for so long. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. Huge amounts of coverage of this exists:, and the idea that the Tories denied existence of such a list is plain wrong if you look at the coverage from 2006. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge. The Conservatives are quite open about the existence of this list. I'm not sure whether this is better as a stand-alone article or as part of a larger article on Cameron Conservatism, but it's certainly not a candidate for deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge or Keep. This has a huge amount of coverage.  Thanks are due to those who improved on the research by the original author and the nominator.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep looks like quite an interesting article. PatGallacher (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep Wish I had found this article earlier. It is a useful contribution.Shipsview (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Snow Keep Sorry for this mistake. Now that the article has been cleaned up it is a better article. Thank You. --Qu e ntin Smith 19:26, 13 May 2010 (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.