Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common sense conservative

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. Michig (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense conservative

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

Unsourced original research since 2003. Viriditas (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolute nonsense; note that in 2004 one editor wrote "I should note, actually, that I'm not convinced this page needs to exist" and I agree. The only ref is to a university webpage on Privatization and Deregulation in Singapore which manages not to mention common sense conservative (or "common" or "sense" or "conservative") or any part of the quote attributed to it. The originator of the article had one glorious day of editing in 2003 and has not been back since. Their contributions will be sorely missed, or not. Emeraude (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's quite a common term, but not much evidence that it's a distinctive phenomenom identified as such in notable sources. Among many hits, I found an LA Times article talking about a candidate trying to portray himself as a "'common-sense' conservative"[1] and David Cameron using the phrase[2] But most people talking about "common sense conservatism" don't refer to a specific intellectual movement.[3][4][5] Conservatives (and other politicians) frequently use the term "common sense"[6], and it relates to topics like populism, but I'm struggling to find evidence that it is more worthy of an article than other possible subsets of conservatism. With references the article should stand - it's far from "nonsense" - but it may not meet notability guidelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an original essay about a non-notable neologism. Take your pick. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 23:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, commonly used neologism, but no sign of a single accepted meaning. Hairhorn (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others, as well as WP:NEO & WP:NOR.--JayJasper (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete - Here's some additional sources that use the term, but don't discuss it in significant detail. [7], [8]. However, while being a neologism, it may be (or become) notable due to its continuous use in reliable sources. Could potentially qualify for transference to Wiktionary. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 15 March 2012 (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.