Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-conservatism
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
— User:Otr500, 17:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:OTHER||WP:OR (Wikipedia:No original research)