Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key thinkers in classical 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 Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Key thinkers in classical liberalism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a spin-off from Classical liberalism, consisting of short descriptions of Locke, Smith, Kant and Friedman, and little else. The problem here is that classical liberalism is a bitterly contested label, and the uncritical classification of these individuals as 'classical liberals' is also contentious. In addition, we already tackle this subject in depth at Contributions to liberal theory and Liberalism. There seems little point in keeping this around as a seperate article. Nydas (Talk) 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, as above. CenozoicEra 07:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per subjective inclusion criteria and WP:PEACOCK in the article name. What is a "key thinker" and who decides who qualifies?  Dragomiloff 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Dragomiloff unless someone can attribute the assertion of "Key thinkers".  SmokeyJoe 12:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, classical liberalism as a term is not as debated over as one would think. Classical liberalism has a very clear meaning even left of center academics accept and those who subscribe to them, especially prior to the 19th century are very clearly classical liberals.  No one worth their salt disputes this.  Only questionable are Hayek and Friedman and other 20th century academics who have been labeled conservatives but themselves reject the term.  Mill is also questionable because he changed his mind later in life and advocated more government.  No one but a few dogmatic wikipedians dispute the list.  It honestly, should be included in the classical liberalism page, but it should not be deleted outright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.249.100.227 (talk • contribs).
 * The word "Key" in the title is unacceptable without attribution. SmokeyJoe 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * weak keep and move - I agree with smokeyjoe and Dragomiloff about the word "key", we need to source these people as "classical liberal", and "thinkers" doesn't fit with other lists of people, but the word "in" is ok for now. The article itself needs sources, not deletion. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - article is too POV. In what sense was Kant a classical liberal, for example? Why is he a "key" thinker in some "classical liberal" tradition? Why is Hume less "key" than Kant? Where is Mill? Where's Rousseau? The whole idea is just too problematic; any definition will be contestable. Metamagician3000 08:06, 8 March 2007 (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.

Whether Kant was a classical liberal or not is not up for debate, he unquestionably is a classical liberal. Only classical, again as the article suggests, because in the U.S. and Canada liberal has taken on a different meaning. Without such North American centric views it should actually read Key Liberal Thinkers, since Kant is, without a doubt, a liberal.