Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National liberalism

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 keep. SoWhy 07:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National liberalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Although various political parties have been called the National Liberal Party there is no ideology of national liberalism. The article is original research that synthesizes information about various political parties to describe a new subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 07:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose and not just because I was the one who started the article: in fact the article was much smaller then and has been expanded by several other users, mostly IPs. En.Wiki has plenty of articles about sub-ideologies (see Category:Political ideologies) and many branches of liberalism (see Category:Liberalism), if we delete this one many others will follow soon. National liberalism is a historical brand of liberalism typical of some German-speaking countries, but the term has been used also recently. Moreover the article includes plenty of sources. I don't see why should we delete this article, the issue clearly deserves an article in en.Wiki. --Checco (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean oppose; I'm not completely sure it's a coherent ideology, but there certainly are parties that are nationalist and liberal. —Nightstallion 10:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack sufficient showing that the term is "national liberalism" vs. "liberal nationalism" vs. something else. Needs more sources to establish that this is real and widely accepted as existing. Racepacket (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: national liberalism deserves its own En.wiki article as equally as the many other sub-ideologies with have articles. Note that academic sources are used to reference the article, so it is not an unfounded topic for am encyclopaedic entry. --Autospark (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Actually none of the sources discuss national liberalism and I have been unable to find any. You could help improve the article by finding a source showing that any such ideology exists. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. To find sources on national liberalism, might I suggest clicking on the google books and google scholar links towards the top of the AfD? --Paularblaster 22:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. As previously brought up google scholar brings up a wealth of information. I used some of it to write a paragraph addressing Racepacket's valid concern over a lack of differentiation between it and liberal nationalism. J04n(talk page) 12:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Historically relevant (e.g. 1848 revolutions, connections liberalism-nationalism need to be treated). Wikipedia has articles on Green libertarianism etc., we surely need that one, too. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The term "national liberalism" does not appear in De Ruggiero's The History of European Liberalism[1], the first major work on liberal history, and more recent historians like Anthony Arblaster (The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism[2]) or James L. Richardson (Contending liberalisms in world politics[3]) do not mention it either. There are no other sources that define the term. I have been unable to find any definition of the concept in any sources and ask that anyone who wants to keep the article provide a source for it. (Liberal nationalism by the way already has its own article.) The Four Deuces (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For any topic that you care to mention it would be possible to find some books that don't mention it. Those books are irrelevant to the discussion - what matters it that there are plenty of other reliable sources that do mention it, as shown by sources in the article and others found by the Google Books (including some that mention it so much that it's in the title) and Google Scholar searches linked above, which for the most part use this term in the meaning used by our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The books in the link are about the National Liberal Party (Germany). It already has its own article. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Google Books and Google Scholar links listed at the top of this discussion you will see that many of them discuss the political philosophy of national liberalism with reference to dates before 1867, which is when the German party was founded, so they are not only about this one party. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if someone could explain what it was, give an example of a proponent and recommend an authority on the subject. The article fails to do this. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are questions for the article talk page rather that for an AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did bring it up on the talk page. Unfortunately no one seems to know what national liberalism is. That is by the way the whole point of the AfD - that there should not be articles about concepts that no one can define or find sources for. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No sound reason for deletion. Article is sourced and on a notable topic. googlebooks has 735 cites for the precise phrase. NYT solidly backs use of the term per [4] [5] etc. placing it as clearly used contemproaneously. [6] etc. show scholarly usage. Collect (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2009 (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.