Deletion of Anarcho-conservatism

Comment: per all the copyright violations & it having been created by a sock of an indefinitely banned user.  is necessary. Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: 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 https://worldpolicy.org/2017/05/04/trumps-ineffective-protectionism/ 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 , as it is almost entirely built from  claims that these quotes have something to do with the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:OR)

Comment: 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, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cobblers cobblers
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTESSAY)

Comment: It does not matter if there are 100 fringe sources ("well sourced"?) can someone address concerns of ? 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? http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/09/hoppe-habermas%E2%80%99s-anarcho-conservative-student/ This link, an apparent self-outing reference (entry in Wikipedia: "which yours truly started") mentions Anarcho-Conservative as does http://www.academia.edu/25124988/The_Ideology_of_the_21st_Century_Anarchist_Conservatism 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:OTHER||WP:OR)

Comment: Per  -- WisdomTooth3 and XavierItzm have demonstrated that this article is a notable topic that meets . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:RUBBISH||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:IS||WP:42)

Comment: The suggestion that this is a distinct tendency of Anarchism is a  view. The sources provided are few in number, obscure and of uncertain provenance, and no strong case has been made for this not being just another word for American-style Libertarianism
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: 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 (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2165/jewish/Chapter-One.htm 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:notability)

Comment: per . The blogs cited in the article are published by people notable enough to have their own WP page: Lew Rockwell, Stephan Kinsella, etc. Describing a publication as a blog doesn't mean anything. Paul Krugman has a blog on the New York Times; is it not sufficiently notable for WP? 'Conservative anarchist' and 'anarcho-conservative' are synonymous, as indicated on the article's text, much the same way anarcho-communism is synonymous with communist anarchism. The distinction of anarcho-conservatism to libertarian conservatism is clear in the text, and is symmetrical to the distinction of anarcho-communism to libertarian socialism. The distinction to anarcho-capitalism is also clear in the text. Whether the term is an oxymoron or not is irrelevant; social anarchists also find anarcho-capitalism to be an oxymoron. Contrary to what {{u|E.M.Gregory}} is doing, WP articles are not there to prove a . The article doesn't say Sayyid Qutb was an anarcho-conservative, but simply that his quote therein reproduced is. The same applies to the other quotes listed under "anarcho-conservatism#Anarcho-conservative_quotes_from_notable_authors|Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors". Finally, yes, the article is heavy on quotes at the moment; of course, it's a '''new''' article. Once body text is added in between, and even in substitution to some of the quotes, it won't look so skinny and bony. If you see other problems with the article, please feel free to 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:POINT||WP:FIXIT)

Comment: per .  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 , or perhaps someone attempting to prove a  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTESSAY||WP:HOAX||WP:POINT)

Comment: after reviewing the sources, this appears to be a neologism picked up by some non-RS blogs, though one that is defined in different ways by different people. Add in the copyvios and the massive  problem and a clear delete vote remains
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)