Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-Rothbardianism


 * 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 -- JForget  23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Left-Rothbardianism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not appear to be a notable topic or term. 38 Google hits, of which about 31 are Wikipedia or sites mirroring Wikipedia. Delete KleenupKrew (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism, or does not appear to be an influential or notable strain of political thought. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep the philosophical position is obscure, and while the title of the article is perhaps neologistic, the topic itself is notable given the influence of left-wing strands of Rothbard's thought to the broader left-libertarian and agorist movements and upon the political philosophy of figures like Roderick T. Long, Kevin A. Carson and Samuel Edward Konkin III. Skomorokh  01:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, semi-academic WP:NEO with no Google Books or Google Scholar results. To the extent that there are reliable sources that identify a "left-wing Rothbardian perspective", that is something that merits perhaps a sentence or two in Murray Rothbard. At best, this is a fringe position held by a minority philosophy because the fringe feels the minority has joined the majority. Or something like that. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: A neologism is a neologism, and fails on that ground alone, quite aside of the lack of reliable sources.   RGTraynor  15:15, 28 April 2008 (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.