Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'And' theory of conservatism

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 keep. Evident from conversation, the article may need to be retitled and/or merged, a decision which might take place at Talk:'And' theory of conservatism. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'And' theory of conservatism

Delete non-notable neologism. Most of the sources given in the article are blogs. Google search gives 23 ghits [1], but do not provide reliable source by which notability can be established. Google books gives one ghit [2]. Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Neutral for now. You wonder what an actual conservative's reaction would be to someone's labelling their beliefs "holistic". The Oklahoma Gazette article might give some evidence of currency, but the link is dead for me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Financial Times is an excellent source. The article might be merged somewhere else as the title is clumsy. See Compassionate conservatism which mentions it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I gather correctly that this phrase is a UK coinage? Merger with Compassionate conservatism may be the best option here, with a specific indication that this is a UK variant. FWIW, search engines are going to struggle to bring forth relevant material here, since the style of the title is subject to vagaries of both punctuation and ASCII rendering, while the naked phrase "and theory of conservatism" will call forth mostly irrelevant stuff. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies notability requirements, although perhaps a better title is Politics of and. There's overlap with compassionate conservatism but I don't think they're explicitly the same thing. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Colonel Warden and Dhartung, possibly merge somewhere if people think it appropriate. Passes WP:V and WP:RS as a concept but could use some cleanup.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:42, 23 February 2008 (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.