Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-conservatism
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 
— User:WisdomTooth3, 22:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:ATD||WP:POINT||WP:FIXIT (Wikipedia:Deletion policy)