Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Conservative Camp


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Conservative Camp

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

By all appearances, this is just another non-notable blog promoted by its author. Googling "the consevative camp" mostly brings up the phrase used in the general sense, not referring to this website. No real sources. R. fiend (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, promotional.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The site is becoming very notable in conservative political circles and the conservative blogosphere. There are over 55,000 backlinks on the Internet that refer back to The Conservative Camp or cite it as a source for articles, news, etc. While it is not a huge site as yet, it is rapidly growing in terms of doubling for the past three months alone. That trend appears to be continuing. This site is just as notable as many sites already listed in Wikipedia, such as Raising Kaine (a liberal site),Probush.com,Sabato's Crystal Ball, GamePolitics.com,Michigan Liberal, and several others that are in Wikipedia. Many of these sites are either small or independent and with far fewer backlink referrals and citations than The Conservative Camp. It is also noted that there are far more liberal sites in Wikipedia than there are conservative sites.RJDCC (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, G11.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  18:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Source Citations for this site:

Much more sourcing information can be added to what is briefly listed here. No regular backlinks have event been bulleted in this list, as there are tons of them. However, they can be backlinked to this site for credibility. The site should not be deleted.RJDCC (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://topics.philly.com/article/05lBh1p1qX7ez
 * http://www.brucekelly.com/conservative-websites.html
 * http://conservativecoalition.homestead.com/
 * http://usconservatives.about.com/u/ua/gettinginvolved/Top_Conservative_Web_Sites_UA.htm
 * http://64.38.12.138/News/2010/018994.asp
 * http://www.redcounty.com/bart-stupak-true-his-principles/37998
 * http://topics.treehugger.com/article/088yciMcjM0fI
 * http://thebestof.mrfreefree.com/tag/miller/
 * http://www.aboutus.org/ConservativeCamp.com
 * http://www.allvoices.com/news/5368516-skydiver-with-tangled-chute-survives-3000foot-plunge
 * http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lK_5S54UP8oJ:www.wartabola.com/search/Tom%2BCoburn%2B-%2BNancy%2BPelosi%2B-%2BFox%2BNews%2B%257C%2BMediaite+%22conservativecamp%22&cd=61&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 * http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9xkXI52knBIJ:boards.fool.com/Message.asp%3Fmid%3D28418112%26sort%3Dwhole+%22conservativecamp%22&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 * http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VSKHBa8kYYwJ:www.far30mobile.com/src/Iran_warns_neighbors_over_U.S._presence_in_the_Gulf__Reuters.html+%22conservativecamp%22&cd=67&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 * http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lky3Cvhf_a4J:www.resistnet.com/xn/detail/2600775:Comment:2137304%3Fxg_source%3Dactivity+%22conservativecamp%22&cd=76&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 * http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h4yCrS0M_JQJ:sharerevmedia.com/tag/republican+%22conservativecamp%22&cd=81&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 * http://www.articleseek.org/article6332.html
 * http://www.allvoices.com/news/5520253/b/51174427-soldiers-seize-head-of-guinea-bissau-39-s-army-place-prime-minister-
 * http://conservativecamp.blogtownhall.com/?tag=obama
 * http://www.insiderreports.com/AuthorPage.asp?AuthorID=11057
 * http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/the-madness-of-liberal-tyranny/
 * http://www.care2.com/news/category/political/is%20money
 * http://ideaion.com/12024/congress-sees-no-budget-rush.htm
 * http://article.wn.com/view/2010/02/09/Robert_Gibbs_Mocks_Sarah_Palin_What_a_Joke/
 * http://jornadabursatil.com/goinfo/rhode+island+floods+may+affect+200000+agency+says+
 * http://forums.corvetteforum.com/politics-religion-and-controversy/2579907-excellent-article-both-liberals-arrogance-and-ignorance-are-our-weapons.html
 * http://www.wholesale-suppliers.net/articles/entertainment/The-Nerve-of-Insignificant-France-under-Chirac-the.php
 * http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1016893/pg1
 * http://slashdemocracy.org/cgi-bin/page.cgi?g=Netpolitics%2Findex.html;d=1
 * It appears that someone has deleted several of the sources that were originally on the article's page. It also appears that all references have been deleted by someone. There was also a revision done earlier today to the site to make it objective, but the original content is now listed back up on the site and the revision is deleted by someone. Did someone accidently take off the external references to the subject matter in the article and then identify it as spam? It looks like that happened in the history and it appears to be an attempt to make the article appear to not be getting fixed by the author to meet objective compliancy.RJDCC (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, unless some reliable sources can be used to footnote its myriad claims. I don't see the point of the list of ELs above, by the way. Huw Powell (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The list is showing the site's backlinks, however, it is obvious that the Wikipedia administrators are going to do all in their power to prevent this conservative site from being featured in an article, regardless of the respect it is receiving in the conservative online community. I have seen this happen with other conservative sites, such as Intellectual Conservative, Red County, etc. Wikipedia seems to favor the liberal website articles with far less pushback than it does with conservative sites. This site does deserve its feature on Wikipedia and should not be deleted, however, it is not going to be worth the argument with the individuals who are trying to censor the site. That is too bad.RJDCC (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote about notability on the talk page? There has to be press attention, basically, not just 55,000 other websites linking to the site.  This is not "censorship".  When the site becomes notable via reliable sources covering it, then it will have an article. Huw Powell (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice - if it achieves third-party verifiability, it can be recreated when there's verifiable evidence anyone cares - David Gerard (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep*, in response to an earlier entry on this discussion about googling "the conservative camp," it appears that while this is a "general phrase (over 5 million or so entries in google on said subject), there are a lot of sites that are specifically referring to The Conservative Camp. In fact, the very first link in google upon entering that phrase is the site being debated here. I am not sure what is being missed but I think thissite is a fully informational site that must have an audience of some worthiness to be cited so often by other sites. TkE22 06:43, 5 May 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.116.185 (talk • contribs) reality check.  There is no "user:Tke22" Huw Powell (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is as well as may be, but Wikipedia needs reliable sources reporting on a topic to have an article on it. Being "popular" on the web is not enough. Huw Powell (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, because, while it may have a high volume of sites linking to it and it may link to a high volume of sites, there is nothing in the article that establishes this blog from the hundreds of other political blogs out there that could say the same thing, and yet don't have a Wikipedia article. Unless this article can establish how this site is discernible from the many, many other blogs in cyberspace, I feel it is not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 03:31, 6 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.