Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-conservatism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Per WP:TNT (banned user, copyvios). No prejudice against recreation if adequately referenced (and, obviously, without copyvios this time). Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-conservatism

[edit]

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

Anarcho-conservatism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic seems to fail the WP:GNG. The sources listed in the article which discuss the topic seem to be blogs or self-published sources. The LewRockwell source does not use the term "anarcho-conservatism", rather the title is "Conservative anarchists" discussing not a school of thought but the role of "traditionalist" values within historical anarchists and existing anarchist schools of thought. UrbanDictionary is not reliable for notability. LibertarianUniverse describes itself as a blog. The Burkean describes itself as a blog. The rest of the citations are for quotes or taken from Christian anarchism to discuss that school of thought rather than this one. Most of the article focuses on distinguishing the subject from other articles we have on related topics like various religious anarchisms or libertarian conservatism. The bulk of the cited sources seem to treat the topic in this way as well. I've done some google searches and haven't been able to find sources that treat this as a topic in its own right either. As a result of this lack, the article seems to rely on a great deal of original research to synthesize a coherent ideology separate from the topics we already have articles on. Once the WP:QUOTEFARM is removed, there's nothing much here that satisfies WP:V and there don't seem to be sources to satisfy WP:GNG so I believe it should be deleted. (AFD requested by 69.204.38.35 (talk · contribs), submitted at their request. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While WP:GHITS is a poor argument - in this case we have only 68 true hits and most (if not all) of them are not RSes - and one would expect much more for an established political school as thought (and even for a borderline notable WP:NEO). I question whether this is distinct from Libertarian conservatism and Anarcho-capitalism - and I'm not even sure we've passed WP:V for "Anarcho-conservatism" being a "thing" (the sources mentioning the term are various blogs - all the rest of the article is various quotes that do not mention the term). Might be some salvageable content for a merge to one of the former, but a redirect should not be created.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per WP:NOTESSAY. The term itself meets the eye as an oxymoron, the essence of conservatism being that the preservation of government that exists is presumed to be a good due to the horrors of anarchy. Stringing together a series of inapt quotes does not help. Sayyid Qutb for example, wanted to impose a single law on the whole world : "To establish God's rule means that His laws be enforced and that the final decision in all affairs be according to these laws." Overall, the article is so bizarre that the more closely I read, the more I suspect it of being a WP:HOAX, or perhaps someone attempting to prove a WP:POINT that I cannot make out. But it does not really matter why it was created, only that so little sourcing exists for "Anarcho-conservatism," except on websites like libertarianuniverse.com.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Stephen R L Clark (4 January 2002). The Political Animal: Biology, Ethics and Politics (2002 ed.). Routledge. p. 89. ISBN 1134658605. Retrieved 20 December 2018. The fault of anarchy-conservatives, from Burke to the Agrarians, is...
GNG requires more than trivial mentions of the term, and from multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) I'm sitting with The Political Animal in front of me and it mentions the phrase "anarcho-conservatism" twice in the whole book, with little elaboration. The first mention proposes the term as a neologism and you quote the other mention. It's disingenuous to infer that this book discusses the concept "in depth". We've established that the other sources are either unreliable, affiliated, or not in depth. As a proponent of "Misesian economics", which isn't the best bias to bring to a related AfD discussion, you'd be better off building a section on that concept in von Mises's article and adding any related elaboration there summary style. If and when "anarcho-conservatism" becomes an independently notable concept, the sourcing will be bountiful enough to warrant a content split. czar 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I approved the page because it is a notable topic. We pages on cartoon characters and soccor players with only a statsa page to support them. Why are we trying to delete a good economics topic. Legacypac (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has enough good citations. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Delete - This appears to be not a Wikipedia article but a collection of quotes on what the author of the article finds to be a common subject. The term "anarcho-conservatism" doesn't even appear in any of the quotes in the massive second section. Instead, it seems to be tying together various intersections of conservatism and anarchism, including with some concepts we already cover. Looking at some of the sources a bit more closely, several of them look like they're coining a version of "anarcho-conservatism" when they use it (such and such "might best be called.."). That's the case with a lot of these fun prefix-isms in academic literature (I've combined a few myself, which makes for a snappy conference slide). Ultimately, we can't have an article comprised entirely of quotes, so there's not much to retain here. Not opposed to Draftifying if people are really confident about being able to dig up in-depth coverage of a singular subject, written in their own words. I'm a little skeptical, though. A Google Scholar search for "anarcho-conservatism" returns precisely three hits, one of which is "speedydeletion.wikia.com". A regular google search isn't much better. Willing to be convinced otherwise by citations to scholarly sources which deal with this as a defined subject. I would expect any article on a notable -ism to have some literature reviews published somewhere that may help. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WisdomTooth3 and XavierItzm; several books and other sources with reputable authors discussing anarcho-conservatism/conservative anarchism...and then clean up the excessive quotes. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: It does not matter if there are 100 fringe sources ("well sourced"?) can someone address concerns of WP:SYNTHESIS? I agree we have silly articles on otherwise non-notable subjects, and recently I learned there is a push to make Wikipedia a dictionary, but inclusion of other stuff is not really supposed to be a valid argument. Jacques Ellul is reportedly a self-professed Christian Anarchist, but Edmund Burke is listed as a statesman, political theorist, and philosopher. In Religious thought of Edmund Burke it states "He sharply criticized deism and atheism, and emphasized Christianity as a vehicle of social progress.". Unless I missed it, how does his "thoughts" on religion (and apparently non-religion) extend to Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors? The lead does state "Anarcho-conservatives advocate the abolition of the state and the wholesale replacement of state law by moral laws". Assumptions seems to be so vague when anyone that support traditional family structures (second paragraph of the lead) is considered "conservative anarchists", and apparently anyone with religious beliefs. What are we really doing here? Are we starting (or continuing) a new wave Wikipedia psychological view? This link, an apparent self-outing reference (entry in Wikipedia: "which yours truly started") mentions Anarcho-Conservative as does Emre Baysoy but what we have here appears to be a mixture of content and references to cover the term that is original research at its best. Why not tie then all together. The lead states: "Anarcho-conservatism has become closely associated with libertarian conservatism and anarcho-capitalism", so it appears that any conservative thoughts, actions, or beliefs would be considered "anarcho". Again, in the lead, there are statements: "much like all right-libertarian orientations", "Like all libertarians", "Like all anarchists". How is this not original research? There is no way to logically or with sources defend these statements. Unless someone can address the above concerns this seems to be a conglomerate of junk appearing as an article and a reason why editors should not use "seems sourced" without investigating. Otr500 (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: WP:SOFIXIT
That sentence in the lead is not mine, and it seems poorly phrased to me. In any case, anarcho-conservatism is as closely related to libertarian conservatism and anarcho-capitalism as anarcho-communism is to libertarian socialism and individualist anarchism. The disposition of these orientations is identically symmetrical in the political plane. That you may say is original research, but drawing differences and similarities between related political orientations in the text isn't; they are just restatement of what is already affirmed elsewhere on WP. Overall what I do see in those wanting to burn this page is an aversion to this particular political orientation (which I don't share, btw) mixed with obsessive deletionism. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Sofixit should be considered a desperate term to try to throw the monkey off someones back and not one for a deletion discussion. Telling me to fix it, along with other editors concerns over the long list of quotes you have inserted, looking a lot like Reformist Left, would mean I would start deleting a multitude of those quotes, a great portion of the article, and leaving a stub without all the synthesis and biased POV spins. Your editorial spinning is somewhat like trying to paint someone that disagrees with you as a deletionist. I have created at least 79 articles. None of my !votes at AFD are just tossed in. I spend the time to look for sources, comment while I am looking around ---and doing a multitude of other things that include AFC and new page patrol. IF I !vote delete on an article it is NOT because I am inherently a deletionist but that I feel there are grounds that an article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Since you "opened the can of worms", how far would you be willing to allow me to "chop-out-the-crap"? The list of Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors should be completely removed. As with the other article I see you created (with a laundry list of quotes) you are just throwing crap in a pot and steering (not a misspelling but a bias twist for POV) it up. I comment anyone contributing to Wikipedia. I also would like you to consider constructive criticism, from not just me but some that have !voted "keep", and your admission that the article is "heavy on quotes, to remove those that make this junk. Contrary to some that state AFD is not cleanup, that ends up an oxymoron every time an article is deleted by consensus as not acceptable (deletion can be cleanup), it can NEVER HURT to gain improvements on an article, that is a reason we have WP:HEY. The idea of "keeping trash" in hopes that it may someday be improved is comical.
Please note: I have not given a !vote. user:Legacypac moved the article but added Comment: The long quotes are tripping the copyright filter. Does this topic already exist under another name?, (I am looking at this also) and the creating editor has more than doubled those (like 2 1/4 times increase) in the last few days. IF it is not your intention to create a POV spin then why not "sofixit" yourself. Anyway, if editors don't chop it down first, it will very likely revisit AFD, possibly along with "Reformist Left", especially if notions of being a hoax are not addressed. A term can be notable and not deserving an article on Wikipedia. Notability and not using fringe theories are important even on "Philosophical movements" and "Political philosophy", I agree the WP:sourcing is sketchy (Urban Dictionary!) but I am still looking. Otr500 (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500:
  1. WP:FRINGE does not apply. Please (re)read the policy:
    To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. (emphasis mine)
    1. This article is not about a "mainstream idea". In fact, you said that yourself. Therefore, WP:FRINGE does not apply to it.
    2. Yes, anarcho-conservatism is fringe — globally! — but not locally in, say, Amish and Haredi communities.
  2. Your charge that I'm "spinning/steering a POV" favourably to both anarcho-conservatism and the Reformist Left makes absolutely no sense to anyone who's familiarised oneself with these ideologies.
  3. how far would you be willing to allow me to "chop-out-the-crap"
    "Allow"? I don't have any authority to "allow" or "disalow" you from doing anything. You need only justify whatever you do on WP to the WP community.
  4. Yes, I did say the article is currently heavy on quotes, and that body text should be added in substitution to some of them. I'm just better at 'quote mining' than at synthesising them. If that's your forte, please, go ahead and WP:FIXIT.
WisdomTooth3 (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On Burke… He most certainly was not an anarcho-conservative. He was a liberal conservative, as that article clearly states.
  1. There aren't any quotes from Burke in the Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors section (or anywhere else in the article, for that matter).
  2. The section's title is Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors, not Quotes from notable anarcho-conservative authors.
WisdomTooth3 (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No redirect. There are many links but none of them discuss the neologism "anarcho-conservatism" beyond a passing mention. We are an encyclopedia of concepts covered amply in secondary sources, not a catalog of phrases mentioned incidentally across the Internet. It's possible to hold anarchist and conservative views simultaneously, the same way that it's possible to hold anarchist and any other view simultaneously, but we don't dedicate articles to that intersection unless it is also subject to significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The article author's claim that "anarcho-conservatism" is distinct from Libertarian conservatism is backed in the article by... Urban Dictionary? Not only are user-generated resources not reliable sources, but I see no reason why any definition of "anarcho-conservatism" wouldn't be covered as related within Libertarian conservatism, despite that article's own sourcing issues. However, I wouldn't even redirect the term as I'm not seeing the sourcing that even discusses "anarcho-conservatism" as a discrete concept.
What's left if we remove the blatantly unreliable blogs and affiliated/primary source quote original research (as we're looking for secondary source analysis of the concept, not evidence that conservative thinkers had anti-state thought)? The Burkean blog's article (unreliable, btw) is titled "ANARCHO-CONSERVATISM – IS THAT EVEN A THING?" His short answer is "no", it's a term used by some bloggers without significant coverage. He concludes, "What’s more, anarcho-conservatism is little more than a subgroup of anarcho-capitalism, a model which defines all human interactions in terms of free market agreements." The rest of our article is refbombed to give the appearance that this neologism has greater currency than it does. If these thinkers have thought important thoughts at the intersection of anarchism and conservatism, cite the secondary sources (that discuss their importance) within existing sections, not the primary sources itself, as to make the claim that these thinkers form a corpus of "anarcho-conservative" thought (with no analysis to back that up) is textbook original research.
Atop that, this quote farm is a stark copyright violation that should never have passed AfC on formatting alone. Wikipedia works to minimize non-free content, and to copy non-PD texts at length in lieu of paraphrase is to violate that principle. I find the other "keep" arguments above to be lacking basis in policy.
czar 18:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: We are an encyclopedia of concepts covered amply in secondary sources … we don't dedicate articles to that intersection unless it is also subject to significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources.
The secondary sources are there. For instance:[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Clark, Stephen R. L.; Clark, Stephen R. L. (2002-01-04). The Political Animal: Biology, Ethics and Politics. Routledge. ISBN 9781134658602.
  2. ^ Diggins, John Patrick (2015-03-08). Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400868063.
  3. ^ kanopiadmin (2006-07-26). "Who Was Gottfried Dietze?". Mises Institute. Retrieved 2018-12-29.
  4. ^ 1963-, Wilkin, Peter (2010). The strange case of Tory anarchism. Faringdon, Oxfordshire: Libri Pub. ISBN 9781907471100. OCLC 662410383. {{cite book}}: |last= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
WisdomTooth3 (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is "more than a trivial mention", per the general notability guideline. Books contain many neologisms—the burden of proof is on you as the article creator to show that the concept itself is the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The giveaway, in this case, is overloading the article with primary sources to give the appearance that the neologism has more currency than it does. The phrase "Tory anarchism" at least has some currency, but it should be covered in an existing article as there isn't enough sourcing to establish its difference or independence from other forms of conservatism. czar 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per user:czar, E.M.Gregory, and my comments above because there is a clear lack of notability. Synthesis can be found in the Biblical references (1 Samuel 8 ---REALLY!!) that have nothing to do with the subject and the above mentioned refbombing, like (Chabad.org) "Moses received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over..." and the several links to Tolstoy, is proof this is a travesty. Arguments that performing a search equates to WP:GHITS, in looking to find notability, is pure BS. Just a Google count has been found to be misleading but anyone on Wikipedia that runs across a subject wanting more information will perform a search. Concerning that: Perform a Goggle book search (20 a page x 3 pages) to see a lack of notability. Otr500 (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: The reference to Samuel is copied over directly from the Christian anarchism article (as noted in the talk page). Yes, "really". I fail to see the problem with that. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Note, I'm the technical starter of this AFD, but that was only to help another editor set up the AFD; it was not my !vote.) Looking at the references that earlier posters are claiming make this absolutely essential, I don't find anything of the depth called for. I find stuff like this - a one-sentence mention that is given a full sentence here, and which is linked to an article that mentions the term not at all. (Even if that were not the case, this article would be in need of a serious dose of WP:TNT, as it is almost entirely built from WP:OR claims that these quotes have something to do with the subject.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article probably needs some work, but I believe the subject does pass WP:GNG and is worth retaining. Skirts89 (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:RUBBISH -- WisdomTooth3 and XavierItzm have demonstrated that this article is a notable topic that meets WP:GNG. The fact that the article right now is of poor quality is not a valid argument for deleting it. The article can and should be improved to make it more encyclopedic and on-target. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that the closer takes the time to interrogate which "meets WP:GNG" comments are backed in policy and which are arguments to avoid. Also note that the article is a giant copyright violation. The overwhelming majority of text is copied straight from books, rather than paraphrased, and it continues to expand despite warnings above. czar 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright violations and excessive quotations should be removed, but that is irrelevant to the topic's notability. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar:
  1. "A giant copyright violation" it is not. The quotes in the article are brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks (WP:NFCCP).
  2. The article is only looking heavy on quotes because it is light of body. It needs more content, not less.
  3. As 1990'sguy noted, these considerations are irrelevant to the article's notability.
— WisdomTooth3 (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but attribution doesn't stop extensive quoting from being a copyright violation. Take your pick: Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted_material_and_fair_use, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Respecting_copyright. And the article's state does affect whether the whole thing will be thrown out. The above, drive-by "meets WP:GNG" comments do not address any of the issues raised with the contents of those sources. I'm not going to repeat myself but I will remind the closer of their obligation to properly weight policy-backed rationale. czar 06:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Ok,I'll pick the first one you cited:
Although quoting involves copying of another's work without permission, it is generally considered one of the uses permitted under fair use in the United States. ...
  • The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information. What constitutes a substantial portion depends on many factors, such as the length of the original work and how central the quoted text is to that work. ...
  • The quotation must be useful and aid understanding of the subject; irrelevant quotations should be removed.
  • All quotations must be attributed to their source. (WP:COPYQUOTE)
While there are many quotes in the article, none of them is longer than a few sentences, they are all properly attributed to their source and in no way represent a substantial portion thereof. If you feel some of them can be trimmed, or would like to make the article less quote heavy by contributing with body text, please go ahead and WP:FIXIT. — WisdomTooth3 (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried being reasonable. I'll let someone else explain. czar 07:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio check[1] sorry but I'm off to bed but

That looks bad. Doug Weller talk 22:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's tool is for checking whether content has been copied over, Doug Weller. Of course it has! They are quotes! But they do not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, are attributed to their source, and are specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks. That's what WP:COPYQUOTE and WP:NFCCP require. — WisdomTooth3 (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the first one on Earwig was far too long to comply with policy. I thought it was but didn't want to act until I'd checked, which I now have. I've removed the example so it now complies. It certainly wasn't brief. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or maybe redirect in the unlikely event that a suitable target can be identified but definitely no merge).
    At a first glance I thought the article was an elaborate joke. Now I am genuinely unsure. (Well, I'm unsure whether it is a joke. I'm still very sure that it is elaborate.) I'm fairly convinced that no such distinct/coherent ideology exists under this name or, alternatively, that it is currently in the process of being created under our very noses and is, at least for now, not notable. If the name does refer to anything both coherent and notable then surely we already have an article for this under its more common name? (If so, a redirect might be appropriate.)
    The term has been punted a few times, and it turns up occasionally in reliable sources, but the meaning is not very clear or consistent. In some cases it seems the term is used by Socialists as a term of abuse for liberals and insufficiently statist anarcho-socialists. In other cases it seems it is used sarcastically by conservatives to mock those of their number who flirt with anarcho-capitalism. In a few cases it seems somewhat more in line with that chosen by this article but the choice to go down this route seems pretty arbitrary. What I don't see is anybody identifying their own ideology under this name and forming a movement around it. The sources are thin anyway. (Literally only 2 hits and two citations in Google Scholar! Two in Google News. Zero in Google Newspapers. Google Books is the best one. 135 hits would be more than sufficient if they were almost all talking about the same thing but they are not.) So if the sources are thin, where did this article spring from? What I see here is a whole mountain of Original Research. Even the purported "flag" seems to be the work, and probably the personal invention, of the author. There is no evidence that it exists in the wider world. The large quotations (some of which may or may not be copyright violations) speak of an attempt to cobble together an ideology on the spot. This is where it becomes outright comical. Various things that various people have written are co-opted as "Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors". Many of those people lived prior to modern political terminology. Were we to reach into their afterlives and torment them by making them read this article, far from recognising their own political philosophy, most of them would have not the first idea what it was talking about or why their name was being associated with it. So what we have here is, at the very best, an essay and at worst somebody's personal collection of inspiring quotations with a misleading title pinned to the top. The article seeks to cobble together a load of unrelated sources and the result is, as we say in the UK, cobblers. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal:
  • What I don't see is anybody identifying their own ideology under this name and forming a movement around it.
    Would Orwell be notable enough for you?

    The idea of a tory anarchist was first coined by Orwell to describe both Jonathan Swift and himself[1]

  • Even the purported "flag" seems to be the work, and probably the personal invention, of the author.
    Not sure what led you to think that, but it isn't. I simply googled it and reproduced it.
  • Many of those people lived prior to modern political terminology.
    That's irrelevant; the article doesn't claim those authors quoted were anarcho-conservatives, but that the quotes themselves are. So it's not a matter of self-identification. And even if it were, John Locke and Adam Smith never self-identified as classical liberals and no one with secondary education would question that they were for this reason alone.

References

  1. ^ 1963-, Wilkin, Peter (2010). The strange case of Tory anarchism. Faringdon, Oxfordshire: Libri Pub. ISBN 9781907471100. OCLC 662410383. {{cite book}}: |last= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
~ WisdomTooth3 (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you tell us exactly where you found the flag? There is no guarantee that if I Google it that I will find the same thing as results can change significantly based on location and the exact search term used. If there is a reliable source associating the flag with the name "Anarcho-conservatism" (or an accepted synonym) then that can be used as a reference and I'll be happy to withdraw my objection to the flag.
Please can you tell us which reliable source(s) explicitly identify each of those quotations as exemplars of, or compatible with, "Anarcho-conservatism". If such sources exists, and they really do link those quotes to the description of "Anarcho-conservatism" (or an accepted synonym) then I would agree that the self-identification issue could be overcome in the same way as for the Classical Liberals but I'm not seeing that at the moment. Let me give an example of the inadequacy of the quotation references. The Shmaayah quotation is referenced to https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2165/jewish/Chapter-One.htm where the word fragments "anarch*" and "conserv*" simply do not appear at all. The reference verifies that the quotation does appear in the source but not that it has anything to do with the alleged subject of this article. Without an additional RS source to make that link for us we have a WP:SYNTH problem. Multiply that problem by the rest of the quotes and you should see why the quotations section, at the very least, is entirely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.
Finally, I'd like to add an additional concern which I neglected to mention before: At no point does the article attempt to cover responses or criticisms to the subject. If you look at any other article about a political ideology you will see coverage of reactions to it. Perhaps it is ironic, but one solid proof that a political ideology is notable is when notable people start criticising it in depth and by name. At a first glance this might look like it has a chance of succeeding. After all, some of the references used are indeed attacking or dismissing something they call "Anarcho-conservatism" but when I check a few of them it seems like the term is often used as a term of mockery or as a strawman for something else. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! And I nearly forgot to mention... I don't have access to the source you suggested but, given that George Orwell was a Socialist, I'd be pretty amazed if he ever described himself as any sort of a Tory and meant it at face value. I suspect that he might have been making a humorous reference to the perceived incongruity of somebody of his background ending up on the left but I'm not in a position to check. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Striking my questions as they are now moot. It isn't really fair to leave them open when the user they were aimed at can't reply and I had a hand in that happening. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
As best as I can tell using Google image search, the same supposed flag shows up two places on the web linked to anarchy and conservatism. One is this Wordpress blog, which has no listed author, just one blog entry, and nine different flag images for "Anarco-conservadorismo" in the sidebar; the other is this essay which is meant as a guide for players of a game, with various clearly made-up flags, and which uses this same flag for "individualist anarchism" and for "fiscal conservatism", and doesn't use any term starting with "anarcho-conservat". And that is sort of symbolic (as flags are meant to be) of the article as a whole. It is the author slamming together several different terms that they claim are the same thing without any verifying source (I can see how they sound alike, but milk chocolate is not chocolate milk), then adding on quotes because they, without any sources to back them up, think that these quotes fall under that descriptor. And voila! Suddenly there's a huge farm of references that supposedly make this a thing, on their say-so. There ain't no there there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only difference is the reduction of copyvio, as even despite that, overquoting remains. Otherwise, what sourcing has been introduced that hasn't already been discussed above? As for whether the Mises Institute is a "quality source", well, RSN doesn't agree. czar 03:13, 5 January 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anarcho-conservatism&oldid=1083744291"