Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The European 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 no consensus. This is a tough one, as evidenced by this discussion remaining open since May 20th. The standards in WP:GNG are difficult to meet. Several editors have marshalled a number of sources in support of keeping the article, including convincing evidence via WorldCat that the publication is listed in important libraries (though this is typically not enough to keep an article). However, most of the sources offered by those arguing in favor of keeping fall short of "significant coverage" because they mention the subject in passing only. There are a few sources that primarily address the subject, but these appear to be less influential. At the same time, some of these passing mentions seem to indicate that the subject comes close to satisfying WP:NBOOK's third criterion. Even this argument is tenuous given the passing nature of these mentions. Ultimately, my read is that consensus has not been reached, but I suspect that a future discussion may result in the article being deleted unless additional third-party significant coverage emerges.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 01:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The European Conservative

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

promotional article about a magazine that afaict isn't notable, despite being created by notable founders. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, the journal is listed in important libraries from Oxford and Cambridge university to New York public library as you can see in the world book catalogue https://www.worldcat.org/title/european-conservative/oclc/1057445721?referer=br&ht=edition --Pepe1979 (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The European Conservative is relevant as it is widely read on the European political right and beyond and serves as a focal point for the connection of conservative academics. Do not delete in any case --Oberlandler080 (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep. The journal (and the article) is relevant and does satisfy the WP relevance criteria. There are scholarly research papers that attribute importance to the TEC because of their role in the transfer of ideas between west European and east European conservatives or right-wingers.--90.204.114.23 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Does meet WP:BKTS, but I can't find anything that comes even close to being useful for WP:BOOKCRIT. Some confusion with mentions of ECR, so I'm reserving judgement for now until I can go through things a bit deeper. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. On a more detailed review of the sources, I am unable to find any evidence to suggest there would be significant coverage of the publication itself, beyond the existing namechecks. The originating organisation may be more notable and an appropriate place to have some coverage, giving due weight, however, the title seems too generic to be a good redirect. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - we don't have to like it, but it is notable: Salon, with 3rd party coverage, , and some members of its editorial board appear to be controversial, . I didn't have time to investigate content but notable authors come up in the search such as Dooley, , and Montanari. It is also verifiably in distribution: (online, of course) and , , , and .  Atsme  💬 📧 14:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you found any sources that aren't passing mentions or author bios? Sources have to be both in-depth and independent to prove notability, and it seems like all of the links you found are neither. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @BuySomeApples - WP:NEXIST clearly states (my bold underline) Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.  However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Below, editors have consistently found and named RS that have written about the magazine, its editorial staff & contributors, and its influence in certain parts of Europe. We also answered the challenge to provide sources that speak about the magazine itself; therefore, proof that sources exist has been demonstrated.  Atsme  💬 📧 12:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The Salon article mentions the journal exactly once, and that's while quoting someone. The rawstory.com link has the exact same quote. The rest of the links seem to mostly be mentions of the journal in author bios on other websites. These don't prove notability for either the authors or the journal. People associated with the journal would obviously mention any blogs or journals they're published in as part of their work experience, but it's not significant or third party coverage. The fact that subscriptions are available for purchase online is proof that it exists, not that it's notable. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The page would need references to articles that are at least partly about the journal, or that discuss it (even if its just one or two paragraphs). Author bios and quotes by people who work for the journal don't count. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The page would need references to articles that are at least partly about the journal, or that discuss it (even if its just one or two paragraphs). Author bios and quotes by people who work for the journal don't count. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's another source, and yet another citing. GNG is satisfied per the following definition: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.  I've provided an adequate number to satisfy the guideline - keeping in mind GNG is a guideline, not a policy. Evidence of notability has also been satisfied in that other notable media and scholars refer to it, or cite the magazine, not to mention the fact that members of the magazine's editorial board are academics. The sources are there, and I don't doubt that more can be found in foreign languages as it is a European magazine.  Atsme  💬 📧 00:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Added underlined material 11:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * GNG is not a rule, but pages have to meet at least one agreed upon criteria for notability. The New Statesman article mentions the journal one time in passing, that's not in-depth coverage. Simply having members of the board be academics (not necessarily notable themselves), doesn't mean the journal inherits notability. Just saying that the sources are there doesn't count, they have to actually be found. Part of this is because an article's content should cite reliable sources, and not having these makes that impossible. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The one from La Tribuna del País Vasco certainly seems to be significant coverage, I'll bow out on evaluating the source's reliability and ignore that it reads like a press release. I agree completely that significant coverage does not require it to be the main topic, I'd say I'm willing to accept even less than "one or two paragraphs" depending on the circumstances, but to have a clear line for this case, let's say two sentences, in the same general vicinity of each other. How about that? I will strike my delete if anyone provides, for the second source, two sentences actually about the magazine, preferably in a publication that is easier to verify as independent and reliable.
 * I also resent the implication that my judgement of the article is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I see only one other person that could have applied to. But I hope having a clear criterion for which I will rescind my opinion will assuage any skepticism that it is based arbitrarily on my feelings. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alpha3031 – I certainly hope I wasn't one of those people, and if so, then I apologize. I'm pressed for time right now, but I did find an Austin Institute podcast. It's probably time for WP to get up to speed with more modern types of sources we can cite now that most everything is online. This article describes various outlets, and begins with...How can political establishments hope to survive..., this one has a picture caption, this shows one of their staff was a moderator, The New Yorker mentions the magazine: He applied to the academy in 2018, sending Harnwell a few clips blasting political correctness from the magazine he edits, The European Conservative. I think notability is established. I've gotta run!  Atsme  💬 📧 21:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll review the podcast, even though I'm not so optimistic about the amount of independent, secondary content considering the usual caveats we apply to interviews, but the other sources you've linked don't come anywhere even close to the rather low bar of "two sentences about the subject". What are we to write here? "Fantini is or was editor-in-chief"? "He's the second guy from the left in this picture here"? "Some other Fantini has also done things at such and such law school"? "There are clips blasting political correctness in this magazine that Fantini edits"?
 * We can't piece together an encyclopedia article from coverage of perhaps half a sentence each (and that's a generous overstatement for the ones other than the New Yorker). A Wikipedia article is more than just a collection of miscellaneous facts! That's the type of thing we cut from other articles when people try to take them on into a section at the bottom, and exactly why we even have SIGCOV. Even if we ignore the "independent" and "reliable" parts (which to be fair, the New Yorker would have no issue meeting) those sources are so far from useful, "significant" coverage I'm not sure why they were posted.
 * Perhaps the keep !voters would prefer to discuss things in relation to WP:BOOKCRIT#3 instead of #1 and temporarily bypass the SIGCOV/GNG issue for now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * On review (I skimmed it the first time), it is more clear that the second source posted starting "How can political establishments hope to survive" is entirely about the subject, but it is also written by (people affiliated with) the subject. The last paragraph of "we are the people that write this magazine and by the way it is very great" (paraphrased obviously) is about as unambiguous as it gets, though I do wish it got attributed to an actual specific real person (or persons as it were). At least it is clearer than the Tribuna article. In any case, consider my !vote stricken until I can actually review the other source. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is another article from Hungary, in "Mandiner", a magazine close to the Orbán government. It looks like The European Conservative is especially promoted in right-wing circles in Central East Europe. https://mandiner.hu/cikk/20210720_jon_a_megujult_the_european_conservative_magazin.--Pepe1979 (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sure that User:Oberlandler080 and the IP are voting with the best of intentions, but it doesn't seem like either of them understand Wikipedia guidelines. Given that their only edits so far have been to vote in this AfD, their votes may not be well informed. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There are several academic research papers or books respectively that discuss the influence of the journal. They point out that it is noteworthy in the ideas transfer between right-wingers in east Europe and west Europe. You find the papers' links in the article. BuySomeApples seems to have ignored this.--Pepe1979 (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, as the creator of the article, it's usually recommended that you comment rather than vote. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your latest link is 404 for me, so I can't comment. If you have an archive or a copy of it, that would be appreciated. I'm not so sure that it was a matter of those papers being ignored, rather than it being assumed understood that the explicitly stated requirements of "one or two paragraphs" would exclude from consideration papers which have written about the subject considerably less than a paragraph. I will restate my considerably looser requirements more bluntly if it helps. If your source has less than two sentences, don't even bother. If your source is not verifiably independent of the subject, it would be appreciated if you indicate why you think it is. On reliability: I'll mostly trust whatever your judgement is on how reliable your source is, as long as you include something indicating you've thought about it and why you've arrived at that conclusion, I or someone else can verify the reliability of a source if we have the time.
 * There is a reason we ask for WP:THREE best sources. We only need three. If they're good enough, sometimes maybe two is enough, but we will never need more than three assuming they do the bare minimum of "actually meeting the criteria". And if your third best source won't meet it, it is highly unlikely your 4th best or 5th best will meet it either. If they don't meet the criteria, then it is a waste of time, both yours and ours. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello @Alpha3031: Sorry for the broken link. I 'll try again:
 * Jön a megújult The European Conservative magazin! | Mandiner Pepe1979 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I appears that the editor of TEC, Fantini, is especially active in Hungary. He was also quoted by Balkan Insight in an article on a Fidesz-sponsored conference for right-wing Christian journalists: ‘Pray Before You Tweet’: Hungary Promotes ‘Christian Communication’ | Balkan Insight Pepe1979 (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, on your first source. Significant coverage: great. Again though, the content positively smacks of a press release. If you have any reason based on which you'd assert that it isn't one, then sure, we can accept it provisionally. With quotes, unfortunately they're not secondary/independent so they are not considered "significant coverage in independant reliable sources". The coverage (or a significant part of it at least) also has to be about the magazine, not just any one of the contributors. If you have two sources of similar depth to the first one that doesn't read like a presser I'd wager there's a good chance  and  will both be convinced as well and then we can close this and all go home. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Alpha3031. I did some research and found several talks about the magazine: Here is another interview in “Hirado”, the main news program of MTVA, the Hungarian public broadcaster, with TEC editor-in-chief Fantini about his magazine: https://hirado.hu/cikk/2021/10/17/fantini-tamadjak-a-csaladot-az-egyhazat-es-a-hagyomanyt; I also found this interview in a right-wing Spanish journal: https://revistacentinela.es/alvino-mario-fantini-el-conservadurismo-tiene-que-ser-disruptivo/; here is a interview in an Albanian journal with Fantini about the European Conservative: https://www.standard.al/2022/05/01/kryeredaktori-i-the-european-conservative-keni-nevoje-per-lidere-te-guximshem-media-te-patrembur-dhe-qytetare-patriote/; and then this podcast talk with a Texan think tank (albeit admittedly a small and highly partisan conservative)  in English: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/conservatism-in-the-eu-and-the-u-s/id1537412555?i=1000557934697
 * These are all independent sources. It now comes down to the question if you consider them reliable sources. I would say they are all politically biased and partisan but nevertheless they are independent and show that there is sufficient news coverage to justify a WP article in my opinion. Pepe1979 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice work, Pepe. I have no doubt that the sources provided easily satisfy GNG, particularly WP:NRV, and N but the good work you've done cinched it. Thank you for going that extra mile.  Atsme 💬 📧 22:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate that you've certainly gone to considerable effort to find these sources, but articles primarily composed of what (persons close to) the subject said are not generally more independent than articles that (persons close to) the subject wrote. The podcast was already posted, and I did commit to reviewing it. I'm about 7 minutes in right now, and thus far it is not much better in terms of independent content. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alpha3031 - in light of two very important aspects of GNG: WP:NRV and WP:NEXIST, which appears you may not have considered, your argument is not supported by our core content policies. Regardless, here are a few more sources: Origo, The American Conservative quotes a big block from TEC,  Mandiner group, and Syri. Media doesn't necessarily cover their competition, so we don't expect to see the conglomerate mirroring within the echo chamber we call today's media. It's not unusual for competitors to publish rave reviews about their competition. We have provided sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG and N. The simple fact that sources are quoting TEC weighs heavily in the direction of N.  Editors who oppose this Afd have provided more than adequate sourcing. Happy editing!  Atsme  💬 📧 13:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I consider NEXIST and NRV to be part of the broader N rather than the quick reference criteria of GNG, but my nitpicks aside, and forgive me if I seem harsher towards you than Pepe: Yes, notability can be established without sourcing being found that come close to meeting GNG, at the same time posting all those useless-for-GNG sources without a cogent argument as to why all those sources found are terrible GNG-wise and how the elusive unfound sources are different indicates nothing but piss poor precision. A hundred, a thousand articles not meeting the minimum criteria doesn't indicate that there is one that will. Sure, those press releases and interviews might be easier to find and all, and I will admit that the search term in this case means that the base precision (that of our search results) suffer, but you are an intelligent human with familiarity with Wikipedia notability guidelines. Sources Can Exist yes, but if you want to argue as such, please do so instead of pretending the sources you have "satisfy GNG". They don't, not even close, no matter how many times you assert it. Again if you would like a path to notability that isn't GNG, you can have it: you're more than welcome to argue this based on WP:BK#3 or some other SNG. Hell, you can even make your own SNG-like arguments if you really wanted to, though that may be seen as less based in PAG. What you can't do is pretend General Notability is just "post a few sources, 20 is more than 3 so GNG is met. Hmm yes, definitely significant coverage here: 'it does not need to be the main topic' and even the shortest half sentence I have definitely meets that". If it doesn't meet the standards for Counting Towards Being Notable In General then posting it as such instead of making the argument about how it is one of the Extra Cases Where Things Are Usually Notable For This Specific Subject, or even just This Specific Reason Sources Might Exist For This Article Topic Only Even If It Might Not For Other Topics simply wastes the time of everyone who is trying to find the best three sources and believe the assertion that those sources are ones that you've found to contribute to such a thing. You have posted that Notability Requires Verifiability: Yes, that is definitely true, and to verify things require you to WP:PROVEIT.
 * It doesn't matter that reliable sources (or mainstream media, or whatever people want to call it) is an echo chamber that covers the same set of things. "Systemic bias exists and we want to avoid it", sure, but as our policies currently stand if independent reliable sources cover nothing at all we are obligated to have no articles at all, and if the cover twice as many things they ought to in A instead of B, there is precious little we can do to ensure we cover B instead. So yes, argue how important it is! If you can't find sources meeting GNG, I would honestly be very happy if you could find a few independent reliable sources that say: "The European Conservative is very important for movement XYZ" and we can move the discussion along those lines instead. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Alpha3031: The paper by Valentin Behr (University of Strasbourg) (From Anticommunism to Antiliberalism. Polish Conservative intellectuals' involvement in the transnational circulation of ideas (archives-ouvertes.fr)) provides exactly what you ask for: It shows that the CER and TEC are important as plattfroms for the circulation of ideas - in this case hardline conservative, illiberale ideas by Polish anticommunist intellectuals. The book New Conservatives in Russia and East Central Europe by Katharina Bluhm and Mihail Varga also elaborates on this and mentions CER and TEC as forums for the intellectual exchange. What else do you want? I think this is getting a bit pedantic and we should all move on. Perhaps some other participants might like to join the discussion and give their opinion?--Pepe1979 (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll agree about letting other participants take over. My second round of source review has left me with no better sources than before, and I am more firmly convinced that there will not be any sourcing that meet either of the two target criteria in establishing notability of the subject independent of (i.e. not inherited from) the publishing organisation. As such, I am reinstating my !vote and (considering quality) do not think it likely I will be actively looking for sources a third time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and News media. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Though, come to think of it, this probably could be included in a couple of "magazine"-relevant delsort lists, didn't really pay attention to it before. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources presented both in the article and in this discussion all have issues towards proving notability. Some of the sources in the article are directly connected to the publication and lack independence. Others, such as the Salon article, only mention the work in passing. None of the independent publications cited in the article or provided as evidence in the discussion above address the topic "in detail" as required by policy at WP:GNG. The interview articles do address the topic in detail, but as interviews they lack independence. As such, fails the significant independent coverage requirement of our notability standards.4meter4 (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2022 (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.