Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where editors can easily
ask questions, meet new colleagues and
join A-Team collaborations to create prestigious, high quality
A-Class articles. Whether you're a newcomer or regular, you'll receive encouragement and recognition for your achievements with
conservatism-related articles. This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian.
Have you thought about submitting your new article to "Did You Know"? It's the easiest and funnest way to get your creation on the Main Page. More info can be found in our guide "
DYK For Newbies."
We're happy to assess your new article as well as developed articles. Make a request
here.
Experienced editors may want to jump right in and
join an A-Team. While A-Class is more rigorous than a Good Article, you don't have to deal with the lengthy backlog at GA. If you already have an article you would like to promote, you can post a request for co-nominators
here.
Came across the article on the Christian think tank
Cardus today, which appears to be the result of
WP:UPE. I stubified that rather than nominate it for deletion because it looks like there's enough out there for WP:ORG. But that led me to this, a long article on one of Cardus's reports, again with no good independent sourcing at all (but a whole lot of text). Wouldn't be surprised if this were UPE too. In any event, if there's a little bit of coverage it can be summarized in the main article.
WP:GNG fail here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Arguably notable as one of the whistleblowers who filed a complaint about
Ken Paxton, which made The Dallas Morning News call the group the "Texans of the Year", not just for the statements that led to his rejection as a judge nominee. The article seems to have a neutral point of view. Its talk page includes some additional suggested references that might be worth adding. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs) 18:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Mateer easily meets the
WP:GNG with the coverage in the article surrounding his failed judicial nomination, along with sources such as [
[1]] outside of that context showing that
WP:SUSTAINED is met. If the consensus is not to keep, this should be redirected to
Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies as a
WP:ATD. I'm also not seeing any POV issues here.
Let'srun (
talk) 01:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, per
WP:USCJN. Presidential judicial nominees whose nomination is withdrawn due to controversy are evaluated the same was as those rejected by the United States Senate, for whom "this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability". Clearly there are other indicia, so this rises above that line.
BD2412T 16:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply