Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agonistic 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   merge to John N. Gray. Spartaz Humbug! 21:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Agonistic liberalism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Neologism. As the article correctly states, "Gray uses this phrase to describe what he believes is Berlin's theory of politics...." Otherwise the term is not in general usage and more properly belongs in articles about Berlin or Gray. TFD (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - dictionary definition of a neologism not in common use. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Not just Gray.,  ,  .     and many other sources.   More mentioning Gobetti than mentioning Gray AFAICT.   In short - used by academics sufficiently to meet WP notability requirements.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your source, The realist tradition and the limits of international relations says, "From the 'agonistic liberalism' of Isaiah Berlin..." and provides a footnote (No. 73) that says, "The identification of Berlin's liberalism as 'agonistic' belongs to John Gray in his Isaiah Berlin (London: HarperCollins, 1995) chapter 6 in particular. For a further exploration, see also Gray's Post-Liberalism (London: Routledge, 1993)." TFD (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. I provided five sources. Cheers.  Collect (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You conducted a Google book search for sources that have the term ag, but not Gray ("agonistic liberalism" -gray). However the search did not work, because of the two sources that can be previewed, including the example I provided, both mention Gray.  Piero Gobetti (in a 1922 essay) used the term ag differently, to explain his theory that change comes about from conflict rather than consensus.  TFD (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And that fact means naught to you. Seems that you are more intent on deletion than on recognizing that a term has been sufficiently used by a number of academics than anything else here.    The fact has now been shown that the term has been used and cited by academics other than just Gray, quod erat demonstrandum.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It means that two different scholars decades apart may decide to apply the same adjective to the same noun and come up with two different concepts, neither of which has come into widespread use. TFD (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess all the other academics are non-existent then? Interesting concept, that.   I do not buy it, however. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are these other academics? Please provide sources.  TFD (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm fairly satisfied that WP:NEO and WP:GNG is met here; it appears to be a notable concept that multiple scholars have written about. There are certainly unresolved editorial questions about the article, but I don't think they are daunting enough to merit deletion. Here are a few more potential sources for the article: . Qrsdogg (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first source is Gray's article, your second source is about Gobetti, and your third source says, "a third possible position, which I shall call “agonistic liberalism....”" Three different writers who put the same adjective and noun together to come up with three differenct concepts without acknowledging the work of one another.  Per WP:DISAMBIG, that would require three separate articles.  TFD (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% certain that all of the writers cited by Collect and I thus far are using different definitions, but I'm not completely against the idea of dabbing or merging (as opposed to deleting) this. I'll try to take a closer look at the sources if I get a chance. Striking for now though. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Merge Somewhere, maybe to Liberalism. The article seems to be about the expression, not the thing itself. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BigJim707 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep - I'm striking my delete vote and flipping on this question based on the multiple and very substantial academic sources cited by Collect above. Carrite (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is very bad scholarship because one definition is Gray's description of Berlin's theory while another is Talisse's argument against Gray while still another is a 1920s writer that has nothing to do with either. Please take the time to follow and read the links.  If you did, you would realize that these are various unrelated concepts.  Your vote may keep this article, but do we really want it?  BTW could you please define "agonistic liberalistm".  My view is that neither you nor User:Collect can do that.  TFD (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is at issue is not whether I use a concept or you use a concept but whether an article subject is encyclopedia-worthy on the basis of receiving substantial coverage in multiple published sources. This term meets that standard. Am I going to go out of my way to delve into philosophical theorizations of liberalism because I recognize this term meets our General Notability Guidelines? No. I'm not a philosopher and I don't play one on TV. I don't give a damn about such things. That doesn't change the basic fact that as lousy as this article is — and it is terrible, let there be no mistake — I believe it to be an encyclopedia-worthy topic based upon the evidence that there are multiple published sources dealing with the concept in a serious way, cited above by Collect. Carrite (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge - My research shows some decent uses of the term, including some heavyweight hits in Google Books (e.g. James Martin, 'Piero Gobetti's Agonistic Liberalism', History of European Ideas, vol. 32, (2006), 205-222). But they all seem to use the term relative to Gray and/or Berlin. I dont see it being used independently of the Gray/Berlin context.   For that reason, the encyclopedia may be better served by having the information in the Gray article. --Noleander (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to John N. Gray per above sources found by Collect, and the suggestion by Noleander. The definition of the term appears to be ambiguous, but the term is defined and discussed in-depth by Gray, and its inclusion seems most appropriate there. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per above, as the content is short and seems to be discussed mostly in the context of Gray.  Sandstein   06:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.