Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical liberalism (political parties)


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Classical liberalism (political parties)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Original research. There is no source provided that defines or lists classical liberal parties, and the list seems to overlap with Conservative liberalism and List of libertarian political parties. The sources provided for each party are links to their official websites, but a cursory glance shows that only one, the relatively new and minor Classical Liberal Party (Sweden), makes any claim to being a classical liberal party. TFD (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:NPOV. If you search using synonyms of classical liberalism such as lassiez faire, free markets, minarchism, you will find that there is backing for the platform of these parties. Classical liberalism is clearly defined and all the parties on this list are consistent with the subject (unlike the poorly written libertarian and conservative liberal lists). I think if (per consensus) we are going to build a encyclopedia that makes sense, we need to eliminate overlap between topics as much as possible. For a given topic, having one Master list (in this case liberalism) and then concisely defined branch lists (if the topic is broad enough, which this one definitely is: see Social liberalism for the differences), it would greatly improve the readability of topics.--  Novus    Orator     04:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Too tendentious and so contrary to WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - The article sounds completely like original research and POV. Eduemoni↑talk↓  01:50, 13 May 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.