Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative left

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. I see unanimous agreement that the definition of "conservative left" is unclear and the article shouldn't stay in its current form. The idea of a selective merge has not gained additional traction, so I see a rough consensus for deletion. ^Complex/_Rational 16:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative left

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OR/SYNTH/possible POV fork. Sources are cited to biased publications (including, in one case, a Japanese source which refers to the magazine of an extremely minor HK party claiming to be "conservative left"). No evidence of use of the term in mainstream media, and the article text characterisation of the concept is also, well, questionably put. Fermiboson (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Fermiboson (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A search suggests that the term is used somewhat frequently, but there seems to be no consensus on what it means, and it's applied to all kinds of people and parties in various articles and op-eds. This needs some academic backing before it deserves an article. Cortador (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The idea of a ”conservative left” is impossible and receives no authoritative support from the scholarly literature on the topic. Trakking (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into Conservatism where some of the information already exists. I disagree that this is OR or SYNTH since at least one source (Kaufman, 2020) supports the basis of the article. However, there is not nearly enough scholarship on this phenomenon to support a stand-alone article, and Conservatism has better and better-sourced material. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any additional support for a possible selective Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is a poor attempt at WP:SYNTH of a couple disparate ideas, none of which really hold water. I find it difficult to understand any of what the article is trying to say. I think a selective merge is unnecessary – the only interesting thing in this article is the citation to the Kaufman (2020) article. An author might consider throwing its thesis into the already-existing left-wing nationalism or liberal conservatism articles, but the text on this article is not worth salvaging. Dan • ✉ 21:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.