Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Statement

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. No clear rationale has been provided by any commentor other than the nom to delete this article, while—with an effectively universal consensus— strong arguments have been presented for its inclusion within the encyclopaedia. There has, however, been some discussion of merging this into a parent article; the clear community consensus in favour of keeping the article, after nearly two weeks discussion and a relist means that that discussion can continue on the article talk page per WP:MERGE. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Statement

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

Per ~~WP:STANDALONE~~ WP:PAGEDECIDE. It is highly unusual to see an article devoted solely to an organization's founding statement of principles. In fact I can't think of a single equivalent article anywhere in the encyclopedia. The Sharon Statement is only barely notable, and the content here that's reliably sourced is largely redundant with what's already in Young Americans for Freedom. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC) Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See ~~Category:American political manifestos.~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC) Oops, my error. The relevant category is Category:Manifestos.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: the notability of the Sharon Statement is without question. Even the New York Times says it is a "seminal document" in the founding of the conservative movement. Numerous Google hits. Numerous reliable sources. And it is not at all unusual for an organization's founding document to have its own article. Take for instance Port Huron Statement in respect to Students for a Democratic Society.– Lionel^(talk) 07:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: minutes prior to nominating Sharon for deletion, the nominator removed almost half of the reliable sources and replaced it with CN tags.– Lionel^(talk) 07:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- No actual reason given for deletion. Nom's statement that they "can't think of a single equivalent article anywhere in the encyclopedia" is not only meaningless in the context of AfD but it also reveals a kind of ignorance of the subject matter which ought to but so frequently does not give editors pause before starting yet another time-wasting AfD. Just e.g. see Port Huron Statement (with which the Sharon Statement is frequently contrasted in RS) and Contract from America. Irrespective of that, this easily meets the GNG. Just for instance, see [1], [2], [3], [4]. There are hundreds more. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination is frivolous. If Nom is serious, he should click on Manifesto#Notable manifestos. And he or anyone taking this nomination seriously should should click on the "books" button in the tool bar. I remind Nom that a remarkable range of subjects can be notable, if they have strong souring. This is just a WP article on a notable topic that needs improvement. What else is new?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been linked at WT:WikiProject Conservatism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. There's no dispute that the subject is notable. The issue is that it's neither encyclopedic nor practical to maintain an article about an organization's mission statement separate from the organization itself--hence my reference to ~~WP:STANDALONE~~ WP:PAGEDECIDE. It's not like Young Americans for Freedom is so long that parts of it need to be spun off. Manifesto#Notable manifestos is interesting, but I didn't find any articles in that list that seemed equivalent. As an aside, I find it odd that all three editors who have responded so far have made oblique, unnecessary ad hominem arguments. I suggest we all try to focus on the merits and avoid personalizing the discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not generally respond to AfD nominations so dismissively, but you might want to strike the first 2 sentences of your nomination, they do give this nomination a "frivolous" appearance. I am always willing to be persuaded to change an iVote. I do not claim familiarity with this Statement before I met it here the other day, so I have revisited it in the light of your objection and am here to double down on my opinion. I think that we must regard as independently significant a political manifesto that Eric Foner: in The Story of American Freedom engages with, that Rebecca Klatch discusses in her Charles Tilly Award for Best Book-winning book A Generation Divided: The New Left, the New Right, and the 1960s], and that Robert Donaldson included in his Documentary History of the Nation Since 1945].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor, you should also strike you "delete" vote, a bolded iVote by Nom is verboten since it is assumed that the nomination is a vote for deletion ((nominators are welcome to change to iVote should they change their opinion to keep, merge, or redirect.) In short, you are welcome to join this conversation, but not to vote twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs) 16:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that rule. Fixed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to strike arguments just because you disagree with them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was the 1919 Fascist Manifesto that first came to mind, although the Regina Manifesto is a more exact example of "an article devoted solely to an organization's founding statement of principles," as you put it. However, the best example of an article about "an organization's founding statement of principles," would be the United States Declaration of Independence. But even if these counterexamples dis not exist, the argument in the lede is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, it is not policy based. Your nomination would be taken more seriously without it. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By some. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge excessive coverage. The sources are really about the organization; the statement has no significance otherwise .As for the comparisons, see WP:EINSTEIN. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is SIGCOV of the "Statement" in scholarly articles listed in my comment (below) and in books that discuss the 1960 the confab held in (posh, upscale, and therefore ideologically congenial) Sharon, Connecticut, and its impact. According to these sources, [[Tom Hayden had read the Sharon Statement before writing the 1962 Port Huron Statement, which has no significance without Students for a Democratic Society. Both are highly probable search terms, making it, I think,reasonable to have separate articles. The number of signers of each statement who went on to become notable politicians is also discussed in at least one of the articles below, more of the Sharon kids became politicians, the Port Huron group produced far fewer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- Why was this relisted when no one but nom thinks it should be deleted and even nom admits that There's no dispute that the subject is notable. If even the nom admits that the subject is notable there is no longer any reason for deletion being propounded. What we have here is a misunderstanding of the deletion process and a misunderstanding of the GNG. If nom thinks there's no reason to maintain this article or whatever, she/he ought to redirect it and discuss it on the talk page if anyone cares. And relisting admin ought to at least explain decision to relist. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability isn't the only basis for deletion. And I'm not the only editor who thinks the article should be deleted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So which reason for deletion applies here? You haven't given one. And where are these other editors that think this article should be deleted? Not contributing to this discussion, anyway. Are they part of some kind of silent majority on whose behalf you speak? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid the snarkiness and read. The reasons I gave were in my nomination and follow-up comment and cited WP:PAGEDECIDE. This is a perfect example of the following in our Notability policy: There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. DGG supports merging for this very reason. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is not deletion, it's ordinary editing. You could go straight to that article right now, redirect it to YAF and merge any part of it you want, and then if anyone objects, discuss it with them on the talk page. This is prefered to deletion because it preserves the edit history. That bit you quote from WP:N is not about deletion, it's about deciding whether to start a page. Once a page is started, if it's going to be deleted there has to be a reason for deleting it. You haven't given one and no other commenter on this page has agreed with you that the page should be deleted. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between deletion and merging is minor in this context. The reason I sought deletion rather than merging was because, at least at the time I saw the problem, there didn't appear to be any content worth merging. But frankly I don't particularly care if the article is deleted or merged. To suggest that the discussion shouldn't be extended because no one agrees with me because a merge is different from a delete is bureaucratic and unduly aggressive. I'm pinging DGG to clarify whether they agree more with me or with the other participants. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is an acceptable close to an AfD discussion. When there's a contested choice between merging and deletion, an AfD is the proper location. Though merging is technically an editorial decision, in practice this no longer applies to contested merges--afd is the alternative to edit war in that sort of situation. That's been our actual practice for many years, as shown by thousands of merge closes in contested AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question @DrFleischman: - looking at some of the sources you took out, most key - why did you take out the NY Times. Your summary states "rm ref to NY Times source - failed verification ", but the link provides a valuable reference, is significantly about the statement, doesn't seem a significant breach of any other source rules. Given its importance, it seems key to explain citation removals. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm happy to explain. That source was used in two places: first to verify that the Sharon Statement was called a "seminal document," and second to verify a comment that the Heritage Foundation made about the Sharon Statement. I did not remove the source. I merely removed the ref as support for the sentence about the Heritage Foundation, as the source didn't say anything about the Heritage Foundation. My edit can be found here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is scholarly consideration of this "Statement", including;

AKST, DANIEL. “A Manifesto at 50.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), vol. 36, no. 2, 2012, pp. 38–42. JSTOR, JSTOR, [www.jstor.org/stable/41933884]. (goes INDEPTH on both Sharon and Port Huron)
Braungart, Margaret M., and Richard G. Braungart. “The Effects of the 1960s Political Generation on Former Left- and Right-Wing Youth Activist Leaders.” Social Problems, vol. 38, no. 3, 1991, pp. 297–315. JSTOR, JSTOR, [www.jstor.org/stable/800601].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined towards redirects, so I keep trying to see this DGG's way, but I just can't (see my comment just above the relist.) Instead I find that it is discussed in connection with the Mount Vernon Statement, hits like: From Sharon to Mt. Vernon; and this surprising search in gBooks on Sharon + "Mount Vernon statement", I mean, Jill Lepore:[5] , Lee Fang:[ - these are not exactly Heritage Foundation types, and they are seriously engaging with both statements qua statements. I just don't see redirecting this as appropriate. It's the sort of thing I depend on Wikipedia for (the short course on some unfamiliar thing I run into while reading Jill Lepore.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, no one is proposing deleting any content that could not be found at Young Americans for Freedom. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage provided by independent sources. This is an important article for the subject of Conservatism in the United States. Capitals00 (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2018 (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.