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 merge to The Conservative Caucus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Roundtable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Seems to fail WP:TVSHOW. No sources independent of the show recognize its notabilty. jps (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Conservative Caucus. Not enough sources to stand on its own. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A show with a more than two decade run featuring one of the really big fish in the American conservative movement makes it highly unlikely that this will fail meeting the GNG threshold. Carrite (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Conservative Caucus. While this is a long running production, I can only find passing mention of the program in one book: Mark Oldman; Samer Hamadeh; Princeton Review (25 January 2005). The Internship Bible. The Princeton Review. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-375-76468-4.. No reliable source available online gives the subject significant coverage. There is mention of the subject in published sources such as this ( The Free American!. Clayton R. Douglas. 1999. p. 36. ), however I cannot determine whether it is significant coverage. While there might be off-line reliable sources that show that the subject meets WP:GNG, based on what I can find online, this production is closely related to its producer, and verified content can be merged into a section about the production on its producers article. If reliable sources can be found that show it meets GNG, than I am willing to reconsider.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2015 (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.