Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conservative notice board


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as a vote-stacking engine. JDoorj a m    Talk 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative notice board
Based on creation and individuals solicited to join, nothing more than a POV-pusher central Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - as nominator. Wikipedia:Politics Noticeboard = good, Wikipedia:Rally Conservatives to POV-Push = bad. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, no vote yet, but is this any different from, say, pages where "Australia-related deletions" are kept? Also, is considering a page "POV-pusher central" really fair, or should the individual edits made by editors in the project be what's judged?  I've been solicited on this, so I have no current connections to this noticeboard outside of that, but I'm not entirely sure I understand the merits of this deletion.  As an addition, I appreciate the reversal of the out-of-process speedy.  This should certainly be heard out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt Nandesuka's action was correct. This article, despite the wording, was created for the purpose of advancing partisanship.  The author spammed editors who had expressed conservative points of view inviting them to join (I've given him a warning for this). --Tony Sidaway 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, I rarely have issues with your motives, but how possibly was Nandesuka's action correct? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He did what I would have done: get rid of a clear attempt to abuse Wikipedia to advance a politically partisan views. --Tony Sidaway 16:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any examples of similar deletions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. As a hypothetical question, shouldn't whatever results from this vote also be applied to LGBT notice board? (If we assume good faith about the "wording" of the LGBT page, should we do it for the Conservative page?) I agree with Badlydrawjeff that speedying is not the answer here. (I am not a conservative, but believe we should be making these sorts of decisions generalizeable to all ideologies as well, as part of our commitment to neutrality. Either we allow them all or we ban them all.) --Fastfission 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. And join! I'm interested in articles on "conservative" topics, though I'm generally not in the "conservative" category myself. Of course the self-labelled conservatives are going to line up first -- why shouldn't they? Let it ride. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The LGBT noticeboard seems to be about sexuality. If it strayed over to partisanship, I think there would be a case for deletion. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, there would be; and there might be of the Conservative notice board did the same thing. I'm looking at it. It hasn't. The top of the first archive of the discussion page for the LGBT page says, please do not allow this page to become a forum for the advancement of LGBT politics. If it is to exist it should be a forum for improving Wikipedia's coverage of LGBT issues in a NPOV way. Why shouldn't coverage of conservative issues be able to work the same way? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You argue that it hasn't. The participants on the board aside from you argue that it has. They solicited conservative edit-warriors like multiply blocked . On their list of pages that involves "Conservative topics" is Nuclear family - added by User:DavidBailey, who is involved what could charitably be called an "edit war" over the inclusion of "homosexuals" in a Nuclear family (If my brother was gay, would he not be my brother?) Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course he would be your brother, but it wouldn't make him your wife, at least not in the definition of a nuclear family. DavidBailey 17:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are making it real hard to defend the existance of this page; in fact, you are bolstering every argument those that wish it deleted have made. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So burn it and start from scratch with the LBGT board with LBGT crossed off and "Conservative" written in in crayon. I don't think the actions of DavidBailey should be determing policy in this regard. Ah well, someone decided Let's Have A Wheel War and has eradicated the article again. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Conservatism seems like a good place to do so. Allow me to suggest that articles like Edmund Burke, Conservatism and Social Darwinism would be GOOD articles to focus on, and Partian Stickfest with BRICKS is a bad one. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely delete, and Nandesuka was right on the money in deleting this on sight. Even regardless of its problematic origins, which Tony has alluded to above, it's simply too much of a partisan foothold here. JDoorj a m     Talk 16:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Deletionate with great justice: this is not WikiProject:Conservativism, this is Smash the filthy liberals: you bring the petrol and I'll bring the marshmallows. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maximum delete. Pages which bring together people with an interest in a particular topic strengthen our ability to collaborate, and to produce good articles.  Pages which bring together people with a particular point of view decrease our ability to build consensus on the basis of reasoned, sourced discussion, and increase our tendency to shout from established positions.  The LGBT page is the former, as are the cricket, star trek and Slovenia portals - This page is the latter.  If this discussion needs to be had, then lets air it, but this should have been speedied.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems to be a thinly veiled partisan notice board. Johnleemk | Talk 16:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we delete this group, then to be balanced we would also need to delete other interest groups such as LGBT notice board. I think these groups are a valid and valuable way to alert groups of self-identified editors to articles that might be of interest. DavidBailey 16:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the problem right there. If by "self-identified" you mean "self-identified conservative", that's exactly what's going to the get this page deleted. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And what is wrong with a user saying, "I am interested in this topic, I'd like to know about active efforts to write articles related to this topic?" It seems Gestapo-like to shut this down, and against the basic policies of Wikipedia. Isn't that what the user templates that are so popular are all about? DavidBailey 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Congrats. Your "Gestapo" comment has convinced me to change my position. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is substantial disagrement about the appropriate use of those user templates due to their facilitiy in finding and organizing blocks of editors to POV-push. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's a transparent attempt to organize and mobilize groups to edit articles based on a specific point of view. Just because someone puts a dog in a dress doesn't mean we have to pretend it is the Prom Queen.   As for the "If this one goes, the other ones have to go, too," I would fully support deletions of any other notice board that tries to organize editors based on particular political point of view.  But that doesn't mean we have to be paralyzed with timidity in the face of such an obvious attempt as this until we fix all of them at once.  That's not how Wikipedia works.Nandesuka 16:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per jpgordon. --Hetar 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Topic noticeboards serve the valuable purpose of bringing together editors who share an interest in a given topic. The only purpose the Conservative notice board can serve is to promote a particular point of view.  Delete.  Exploding Boy 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll ask the same question I asked of JPGordon, could you please explain to me why it is a bad thing for people of a particular interest to get together and discuss articles, if it is an interest group related to politics as opposed to geography or sexual orientation? Don't you want people of all idealogies working on articles? DavidBailey 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because that's not what this project is. This project could be renamed Get a lot of people who agree with me to edit war. See above re WikiProject Conservatism, and focusing on conservatism, not POV-pushing. We reach NPOV by editors working for NPOV, not by tug-of-war. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the LGBT noticeboard, people of all ideologies do participate there. Using on the noticeboard doesn't imply a declaration of sexual orientation or a specific set of beliefs. As can be seen from a cursory glance at any LGBT-related article talk page, people of all ideologies edit those as well.  LGBT here does not refer to a particular set of beliefs or behaviours, but rather to articles on LGBT-related topics.  The Conservative noticeboard, on the other hand, could only ever serve to promote a particular point of view.  Exploding Boy 17:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay then, why would a conservative notice board not include people who are not conservatives, but are interested in conservative issues? DavidBailey 17:25, 15 June 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.