Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservatism in Australia

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. WP:SNOW. The nominator is advised that AfD is not for cleanup, and is also pointed to WP:NEGLECT. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism in Australia

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

This article has no sources and is original research. While there may be sources for the article, none have been provided and the article would have to be entirely re-written. Better to blank and if someone chooses to do the research and find sources the article may be re-written then. TFD (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed those problems by adding quotes and cites from seven major scholarly books. Rjensen (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Having been sourced out a bit by Dr. Jensen, I don't thing the rationale of handgrenading a bad article on a clearly notable topic so that things can be built fresh from scratch any longer holds water, if it ever did. It would be easy enough to plow this under in the editing process if someone wants to have another go at the topic. I'd advise the nominator to withdraw this nomination. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If other editors are working on the article, then I am fine with that, and would accept withdrawal of the request. The article had remained in this condition for five years. TFD (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the article improvement workshop. The question is whether Conservatism in Australia is an encyclopedic topic or not. That's obviously a YES. That you have not withdrawn this clearly bad nomination is a bit shameful, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That an article is in a bad condition is never a reason to delete. The topic is obviously notable and it is well sourced now. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Trout the nominator, clearly a notable concept and potential article. If the nominator was so appalled by its poor state, they should have actually tried to fix it up rather than just dumping it at AFD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep. Thanks to Dr Jensen and Northamerica1000, the article is now relatively good. (When TFD nominated it for deletion, the article was, to put it politely, less than encyclopedic. Please keep that in mind before criticizing TFD's action.) CWC 07:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject clearly meets WP:GNG. Subject is the primary subject of significant coverage of several books published by reputable sources. The article needs work, but we all know that AfD is not a replacement for article improvement and clean up.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Meets WP:GNG clearly. No credible rationale for deletion, particularly in light of cleanup efforts that have been made since the article was nominated for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been substantially improved and now has 9 in-line citations. Dolphin (t) 12:43, 3 September 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.