Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive conservatism

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. In principle this could be a tough close since there is nothing to prevent the topic of "progressive conservatism" (even if it is a Contradictio in terminis) from being notable. However, the arguments brought up here for this specific article are all on the side of SYNTH/OR, and an incidental use of "progressive legislation" in a conservative context doesn't change that. Besides, two of the three keep voters don't actually present any arguments at all, just assertions. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive conservatism[edit]

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

This article is synthesis. While various conservatives have been described as "progressive", there is no consistency in what is meant and no literature about "progressive conservatism." The Conservative Party of Canada was at one time called the Progressive Conservative Party after a former leader of the Progressive Party became their leader, and the page was originally created as a re-direct , although they never described their ideology as that.

The article describes it as an "ideology that incorporates moderate progressive ideas alongside conservative principles," and provides Bismarck and Disraeli as examples. But neither premier was ever described as "progressive conservative." It then lists various people who have been described as progressive conservatives, or both progressive and conservative - including U.S. presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Taft and Eisenhower, and UK premier David Cameron - without providing any source that links them together or explains what is meant.

While there may be a temptation to try to find a single definition and then edit the article to reflect it, it is probably better to "Blow it up" until and unless someone is able to do that.

TFD (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TFD (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a freewheeling original essay, a violation of WP:NOR. Blow it up. Here's one encyclopedic topic: Ideology of the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party. Here's another: Ideology of the "Bull Moose" Republican Party. From Bismarck to David Cameron??? Ugh. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Progressive conservativism is obviously the pragmatic philosophy of The Leopard: "everything needs to change, so everything can stay the same". This is not mere satire but the explicit policy of many such politicians. See, for example, The Political Culture of the American Whigs: "European conservatives in the nineteenth century sometimes found that progressive legislation suited their purpose as Bismark and Disraeli well illustrate...". The worst case is that one would merge into some similar political label such as Progressive Conservative. Insofar as there have been major political parties with this name, deletion is out of the question as we certainly require disambiguation and redirects to assist navigation. Andrew (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your source says that conservatives consider "a measure of progress is desirable to forestall more drastic upheavals." It does not call them progressive conservatives. TFD (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The terms appear commonly attached in descriptions of various people and ideas, but as noted it's not clear that there's a distinct and discrete concept here, or one that links, as the page tries to, Bismarck, David Cameron and Teddy Roosevelt. Different authors are mostly using it, sometimes in different ways, as a broad description for those who they want to suggest are not outright reactionaries, when they might as easily have used, and probably do in a different sentence, "liberal" conservatism, "moderate" conservatism or any other synonymous qualifier. And we have a page on the former already, while the latter redirects to it. A disambiguation page is probably necessary, given that the term is used in some party names, but I'm not sure there's any coherent substantive content that isn't better placed elsewhere. N-HH talk/edits 13:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While it certainly needs a lot of work (mainly expansion), this topic is notable, and has reliable sources. Johnny338 (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is certainly notable, it just needs some cleaning up. Staglit 21:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

But what is the topic? That's the point: it's not clear that we have anything more than the random confluence of a noun and a qualifying adjective, as opposed to a coherent and discrete topic formally known by the specific combined term across third-party sources. And, in any event, does the broad term mean anything different to, say, Liberal conservatism? More generally, brief and bold assertions that "this topic is/seems notable", without further explanation, are deployed far too often in AfD discussions and really don't help clarify anything. And it may have sources but the question is what those sources actually show. N-HH talk/edits 21:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2014 (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.