Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditionalist world view (American)


 * 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 to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 01:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Traditionalist world view (American)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is an amalgamation of original research. I'm not convinced any of the cited sources even use the phrase "traditionalist worldview". This topic is already covered under a number of other articles. The article doesn't have a strong form, structure or direction, and reads like a couple of book reviews patched together. Instead of using multiple sources to write about a topic, it reads like an argumentative essay, where sources are complied to reach an original conclusion (that all these different souces are actually talking about one thing which is termed a "traditionalist worldview"). However, that term itself gets a very low hit count on google (including google scholar and google book), which also brings up notability concerns. Perhaps the article should be rescoped under Social conservatism in the United States? But as it stands, the original research issues and notability concerns have me leaning towards delete (but hopefully making this article more visible through the AfD process could generate more ideas). Andrew c [talk] 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per above. The thing reads like an article in a public policy magazine and there's no attempt made to show that the thesis is commonly held. Mangoe (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with Cultural conservatism. This article has good sources while that one has a better title. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Well-referenced and its title doesn't appear as OR to me, since American Traditionalist world view is a reasonable synonomous phrase for Cultural conservatism in an American context, which is definitely not an OR topic. Plus, the article is in remarkably good shape for being 3 weeks old.  Besides, most editors would probably have hoped that a discussion on the talk page or the main editor's user page would have preceded this AfD.  AfD might be too much too soon.   --Firefly322 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree with the synonym; the link has to be proven, and since the proof must come externally, it would have to be cited. Mangoe (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposed approach to determining a synonym seems unrealistically skeptical. For example, I've looked through Mangoe's edits and his or her own standards for making a contribution never approach the degree of "proof" proposed. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, with the possibility of renaming the article along the lines prescribed above. I am a relatively new editor on Wikipedia (long-time reader), and created the page in question as a term assignment for the course The Anthropology of American Culture. However, we were coached on how to make this assignment into something that would not resemble a normal school essay in any way.. It is not a book review, and it is not original research (if it were, I would have put in my own opinions about how the very use of the term "traditional" is a willful mythologizing of US social history). To save myself from writing my own polemics, the article uses specific authors to lay out general trends on the topic; there might be a sentence or two where my implicit bias comes across, but I worked hard to make it as neutral, and as particular in its American context, as I could. As for the topic, it was chosen from a list my professor gave us, and as far as I know it would be well-recognized and -respected by any academic who would come across it. The trouble with the topic is that many people in the social sciences have theorized on traditionalists, but have done so under different names (Hunter uses "orthodoxy," but does once or twice call them "traditionalists," Stein refers to both "conservatives" and "traditionalists," and Lakoff uses only "conservative worldview" since he is dealing largely in the realm of political action rather than isolated scholarly interest; there is secondary literature coming out just now about each of these authors). I think it might be appropriate to google your brains out until you find an appropriate synonym that might be more recognizable for the article title, but the term is in use, and I only wish I had enough experience with Wikipedia to know how to make that clear (one thing you can do is google "traditional worldview" in addition to "traditionalist"--I think these are fair synonyms, and the former produces several more results). Although perhaps some parts of the "Culture wars" section might be appropriate for a merge, the article is different from other articles on social conservativism for two reasons: A) it is explicitly in an American context, and B) rather than writing a laundry-list of issues traditionalists support, I have outlined theories about their worldview, which is to say the overall framework from which they make decisions about those specific issues. It is admittedly a much compacted article on a very broad topic, but for example I used the section "Key themes" to demonstrate that A) according to Hunter, there is a real divide between two groups, and he theorizes it has something to do with an anxiety of modernity on the orthodox side; B) according to Lakoff (the original person doing this kind of research), a model for a conceptual roadmap behind the seemingly illogical views of each side; and C) according to Stein, just like the progressive side of the gay rights debate, the traditionalist side uses particular rhetorical schemes that tend to conform to Lakoff's models, and additionally she argues that in addition to a fear of modernity (Hunter), conservative critics will use victimhood to reinforce their own domination. These are all fascinating theories (and there are more in the article itself) that don't exist elsewhere on Wikipedia--so let's not get caught up in the politics of nomenclature. Sorry I rambled on so much...I'd like to hear what everyone thinks. Thanks, this is actually really fun to debate like this.YouMustBeLion (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an update, an anonymous user (I think?) placed a "FindSources" template on the discussion page of the article, implying I suppose that there are few results when "Traditionalist world view (American)" is put into the search engine, making it not notable. I have placed more "FindSources" templates with various spellings of the topic, many of which show a good number of results, on the discussion page of the article for general perusal. Hopefully that solves some of the notability concerns.YouMustBeLion (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep My 2 bob's worth: By all means go ahead and argue and toss and re-direct the titles and whatever it takes to appease those whose ideological cheeks are flaming at being so concisely outed, but the article provides a succinct and well-researched explanation of an identifiable and pertinent philosophy - certainly encyclopedic in its context and IRL one that countless of my compatriots have buttonholed me down the pub about, knowing that I spent 3 recent years living in the USA. Plutonium27 (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is written in an extremely non-NPOV manner. As such any usefulness it may have is negated by the fact that it's basically an opinion piece. Algabal (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Algabal. Faith (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what a POV dispute is for, not deletion. And that goes for the both of you. KEEP per above. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with this thesis is that the very title of the article is a POV problem. Who says that American political conservatives are "traditionalist"? This article can be viewed as a POV fork, and therefore shouldn't exist. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename/rework as a spin-out of Cultural conservatism (which is currently rather lacking). There's good stuff here, it just needs some love, and attention from more editors to take care of NPOV or OR problems. — confusionball (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. While not necessary NPOV, and includes academic-like analysis, is surely not simply OR or an "opinion piece."  This article pulls together a lot of interesting information (from various published sources) which appears nowhere else in Wikipedia. --John Champe (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2008 (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.