Deletion of Timeline of conservatism

Comment: per Will Beback. This is a tough call for me, in part because I believe that there could be the possibility of something encyclopedic somewhere in there, and partly because I see some merit to the arguments for renaming, per aprock and MastCell. But look: the prominent treatment given to Clarence Thomas, while Felix Frankfurter, among a great many other possible names, is absent, points to a  problem that may simply be insurmountable. Currently, the page reads as though "let's just rush through that early Edmund Burke stuff, so we can get to the good stuff about Sarah Palin". This page has become the new Militant atheism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Doesn't meet , which states "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set". It seems clear that the article was compiled via |original research, perhaps by searching google for "important conservative events" and dumping everything that came up. While these individual problems could be addressed via normal editing (such as by removing poorly sourced entries), we have no |RS stating these items are interconnected, or that, indeed, there even exists such a notable timeline. There is also no clear inclusion criteria for the article. What constitutes an "important event in conservative history"? Without sources telling us, the answer to that question is ''inherently'' |OR. Consequently, the article should be deleted unless (or until) sources can be provided which detail the timeline themselves, without the subjective interpretation and synthesis of our editors. &nbsp; &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:OR)

Comment: Does not meet the criteria for , and it seems the article is totally subjective leading to |original research and |synthesis. Who is to say what is liberal or conservative throughout history, especially considering the changing definitions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Without any secondary sources on which to base the timeline, it's difficult to gauge what should and should not be included.  Does anything that has been described as conservative merit inclusion?  Is this only a political timeline, or does it include economic and religious conservatism.  How does environmental conservatism fit into the timeline?  How about energy conservation?  The real concern is that this article would just become a  of topics included on the basis of whim as opposed to sourcing.  Given these potential pitfalls related to OR, I suggest the article content be greatly restricted to focus on a specific era and brand of conservatism.  Possible examples: Timeline of 20th century American political conservatism, Timeline of American Cold War political conservatism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: The article is a clear case of original research. there are no sources saying these are noteworthy or key events in the history off conservatism, which is already a term with so many different meanings in different cultures, countries and eras as to be unsuitably vague for building a clear-cut timeline. The items are arbitrary, with no objective reason for their inclusion. A typical case it the entry for the appoint of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. Is he the only conservative judge worthy of note since 1500, anywhere in the world? Obviously not. Was Michael Steele a notable conservative in the scheme of things? Not at all: he was an unpopular head of the U.S. Republican Party for a couple of years. I think that it is impossible to write an article at this title which will follow all three core content polices: , , and , and so it should be deleted. &nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Article needs cleanup, as most AfDs do, but the subject is notable and it passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)