Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naïve 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.  So Why  09:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Naïve liberalism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is purely original research and unsourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. its been here 5 years, no references, no indication that this phrase is used at all (i am aware that liberals of some stripes have been called naive, but i was not aware of this phrase being used as a stock descriptor with an understood meaning as given here). i think weve given advocates for the "article" enough time to expand it.oh, and i couldnt find any decent references myself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntler (talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that naive isn't simply an adjective used occasionally to describe individual liberals or liberal positions. Declan Clam (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Used in scholarly publications - hence not simple adjective usage. Try among others     and so on.   for international usage.   used for a forum name to discuss the topic. (wrong link deleted) used as a specific phrase in a scholarly journal from Oxford. Should be sufficient to establish notability of the term. Collect (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * None of that shows that naive is used in any other sense than as an adjective. As for the Naïve liberalism Message Board, it says:  There are no entries in Naïve liberalism forum. Become the first person to post messages in this forum by using the form below!  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete at best a neologism, the uses shown are adjectival, there are no sources in the current article and i can find no scholarly, reliable source discussion of this term anywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bali, WP:NEO, lack of WP:RS. Verbal chat  18:43, 5 November 2009 (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.