Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative liberalism (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Conservative liberalism
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I am fixing this nomination on behalf of User:Darkstar1st, who provided the reason for deletion: "not in sources given". No opinion on my part yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary and while one may apply the adjecive "conservative" to anything, it does not make a discreet concept. TFD (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep conservative liberalism is a genuine ideological trend and tradition, separate from both classical liberalism and liberal conservatism, referenced in numerous legitimate academic sources about political science and political ideologies.--Autospark (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * it is not in the current english sources listed. Also, any article with the top three source cited 34 times, is flawed.


 * ''^ a b c Libéralisme conservateur - WikiPolitique
 * ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Parties and Elections in Europe
 * ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l M. Gallagher, M. Laver and P. Mair, Representative Government in Europe, p. 221.'' Darkstar1st (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Conservative liberalism is a well known and well sourced ideology. It is distinct from any other ideology and thus deserves an article in en.Wiki. Athough the article needs improvement, it is well sourced too and shouldn't be deleted as its subject is clearly encyclopedic. --Checco (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is a legit and notable topic and the sources seem sufficient to me. — Nightstallion 10:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * well sourced, sufficient? poppycock. The first source is in FRENCH, source 2 and 3 do not even mention the term, source 4 is a dead link. Specifically which source did you review, or did you?  Darkstar1st (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The first source is in French... so what? The second and the third source DO mention "conservative liberalism" or "conservative liberals". There are plenty of other sources in the article, and many more can be added as we're talking about a well-known political ideology. --Checco (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * weak keep I`m skeptic about this article. I`m here because the article liberal conservatism is also nominated for deletion and I`ve written in defense of keeping it, but, I must say, conservative liberalism is something I`ve never heard before. Having read the article, I feel the inclusion of so many parties as following this ideology lacks reference, that the ideology is not sufficiently well defined and that while it may have some use in political discourse it is not so clear how widespread this is. This is particularly problematic as so many parties are identified as part of this group and I wonder how they define themselves and who came up with the idea that they fall under the rubric of conservative liberalism. It would be good if the article cited people, both politicians and political theorists, that are identified with such a position, either by themselves or by scholars. Still, I feel my skepticism is probably related to my ignorance on this particular terminology, that may be not widespread but still useful, and to the need of improvement from people who knows more about this. There are valid citations (in english too) and I see no reason for deletion at the moment. Anyway, I hope my comments may help and encourage those who are able to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 00:21, 24 August 2012 (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.