Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy's Razors

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 redirect to The Daily Wire. There's consensus against keeping this, ignoring the rather nonsensical contributions by the IPs. Whether to merge anything is up to editors. Sandstein 08:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy's Razors[edit]

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

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

Subject does not meet notability per WP:CORP parqs (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

of course it does. damned dirty communists 68.114.133.169 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good job fascists, go delete the page, just because it is about a company openly declaring conservative views.
I guess neither Harry's or Gillette pages are not going to be deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:940:181:D65:92C7:DB9A:123B (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not concern itself with whether our article subjects have "liberal" or "conservative" views. Wikipedia does concern itself with whether our article subjects do or don't pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in real media, which takes a lot more than just one or two footnotes. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communism is the very definition of failure -Liberty Prime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A28:413F:35D1:7B61:BCFE:7294 (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning merge and redirect to The Daily Wire. The most noteworthy aspect of this subject seems to be that relationship. The current content would thereby be retained, as a section. BD2412 T 06:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge and redirect: Not notable in its own right. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. May be useful to cover briefly at the Daily Wire article. AusLondonder (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic company fails NCORP's notability criteria. Don't see a need for a merge/redirect for a brand new company at this point in time under those circumstances especially as it isn't even mentioned in the Daily Wire article. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

A) To the point of the others above, we don't need to delete every article that pertains to conservatism.
B) This article is cited by Fox News, which is considered generally reliable.
C) We should give it time, I'm sure this will generate more journalism.

Dswitz10734 (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dswitz10734: To respond to your first "argument", we couldn't care less if a razor company is "conservative". To your second point, we have actually explicitly determined (see WP:FOXNEWS) that Fox News talk shows are not reliable sources. This particular source is the disinformation agent Tucker Carlson who has spread bullshit Kremlin propaganda about American bioweapons labs in Ukraine. Finally, no we don't simply wait for sources to show up to justify an article (see WP:TOOSOON). Hope this helps. AusLondonder (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder, thank you for your time! About Fox News, this is a problem with Wikipedia. We don't like to cite conservative sources then complain when articles about conservatives don't have enough sources, which leads to deletion. I don't believe this article is the problem, only a symptom. I think we need to legitimize more conservative sources because an encyclopedia that claims to be neutral can't be neutral if they're only willing to cite one side of an argument. I hope to hear from you soon, Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dswitz10734, No, it's a problem with Fox News, which has repeatedly shown itself to be unreliable in matters that involve politics and science, and especially their talk shows, and even more especially among these talk shows, Tucker Carlson. I consider myself a conservative, but if that means that I use a known fountain of lies as a source and pass it off to be true, that I am somehow being abused if someone calls that out. The problem is not with the person who calls out the lies, but the person who told the lies to begin with Jacona (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona thank you for your time! To what I said earlier, Fox News isn't exactly the issue. Fox isn't the only news site that leans conservative, others like Breitbart, The Daily Wire, and The Daily Caller are also not considered reliable by the Wikipedia community. Thanks again, Dswitz10734 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are constantly classified and reclassified via consensus of all Wikipedians who choose to contribute. These sources are considered unreliable not based on their being liberal or conservative, but on whether they routinely publish inaccurate information. To this point, liberal sources, for example MSNBC, are considered (just like Fox) to be generally reliable on News, but not so on Talk Show content. For information about sources that are considered reliable, check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If you want to air grievances that sources you like are being mistreated, go Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But this is not a forum for anyone to claim bad faith on the part of the community by asserting conservative sources are being persecuted by the community.Jacona (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Dswitz10734. Let me address your points, if I may:

A. We actually do not delete "every article that pertains to conservatism." A casual walk among the lemmas should suffice, especially the ones pertaining to conservatism. See WP:NPOV for more.

B. FoxNews is not an unacceptable source. (See WP:RSP.) But it is one source. We need more and they must be reliable. Got any?

C. No, Wikipedia does not allow poorly constructed articles to stay up: They're either improved (as soon as they are identified as inadequate) upto the level where they're acceptable - or they're deleted. And, so far, no one has managed to improve this article's sourcing.

Rest assured there is no "anti-conservatism" conspiracy around here. -The Gnome (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever can be salvaged onto the article on the Daily Wire and make this a Redirect to it. There are simply not enough reliable sources out there supporting the independent notability of our subject. The few that are mention it in conjunction with the Wire. -The Gnome (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2022 (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.