Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paleoliberalism


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Paleoliberalism
Appears to be an obscure neologism. Our article gives no citation of notable use (or of anything else). A term in contemporary American politics that only gets 138 Google hits is probably not ready for prime time, and a quick survey of several of those links does not suggest to me that they all use it to mean the same thing. It is (barely) possible that there should be an article here, and I might be convinced by some good citations; I suspect, though, that if someone does the research they will find that the particular meaning the article claims for the term is not borne out even by the bulk of the meagre collection of known uses. Jmabel | Talk 02:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only source of any consequence that I found was this article by Michael Lind in The Nation that paleoliberal used to be an early name for neoconservative back in the days of Scoop Jackson see . Apparently, no Google book results and 2 Google scholar results of which one is the Nation article mentioned above .Capitalistroadster 03:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In other words, the only source of any consequence that Capitalistroadster found contradicts the meaning "documented" in the current article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: I have heard this older neologism used in dialogue more than once, but very recently (two weeks ago). I find it interesting that its resurgence may be a way to anger neoconservatives by describing them with a term containg 'liberal', as that seemed to be the context in which I heard paleoliberalism. 42Moxies 10:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per capitalistroadster, and note Special:Contributions/PaleoLib. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 *  Transwiki  if Wiktionary doesn't have it: It's not a neologism, and I've heard it (being paleolithic, myself), but it's not really something around which to build an article.  At most, it could be a redirect to neoconservative, but that would be soooo disputed. Geogre 18:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to delete: contents are not appropriate for transwiki, and I'm doing what I scold others not to do: proposing entirely new content so that there can be a transwiki. That's not appropriate.  The article as it stands is just another attempt at subversion and is false. Geogre 13:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Author has not been here but has been linking (and re-inserting after reversion) in every "liberal" article in sight, including the template. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, articles like this are what makes the wikipedia strong. Detailed accounts of of obscure topics at a quality that can't be found elsewhere. Never delete anything simply because its obscure, people WANT obscure info, thats why they read reference books! Sam Spade 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not that it's obscure, it's more that what references exist point to a different (and equally obscure) meaning. The fact that the user is called "paleolib" may also indicate the presence of tigers... - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah... well can we improve it then? Sam Spade 22:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as per submitter --Mecanismo 23:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I agree with Sam Spade. The purpose of wikipedia is to serve as an online encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are supposed to bring things out of obscurity. With this article more people will know of the concept of paleoliberalism. That's the objective of wikipedia, to spread knowledge. -- Crevaner 23:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the objective of Wikipedia is to document existing knowledge, not to make stuff up or act as the PR agent for obscure stuff somebody recently made up. --Calton | Talk 02:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per submitter. Besides, there's not a single freaking outside reference or citation I can find in the article to its ostensible subject. --Calton | Talk 02:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not obscure, I'm absolutely sure I've read the name "paleo-liberalism" elsewhere before. -- HowardDean 14:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, doesn't even cite any sources. I may reconisder if sources are cited. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Made-up term that has some currency in the blogosphere. -Willmcw 16:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment see this edit, which I have reverted. I'm encouraging User:PaleoLib to raise her/his issues here. No vote. AndyJones 17:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of course it's a made-up term, just as "paleoconservative" and "neoconservative" are made-up terms. That doesn't mean they should not be on Wikipedia. And, Willmcw since you claim it has currency in the blogosphere, then it has notability. -- AndrewBartlett 00:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, lots of stuff in the blogspere is not notable. As far as I can tell only one dictionary carries the term (American Heritage), and even with all those blogs it still scores fewer than 800 Google hits.  Exclude Wiki mirrors and dictionaries and that's down to under 650.  Not a lot, I'd say, for a political subject - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per Capitalistroadster .-- Dak ota     t     e   00:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I agree with points made above, especially that the article can be improved. -- Radicalsubversiv2 16:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP. I am the person that created the article and of course object to it being deleted. The accusation that I made the term up is ridiculous. I've read it in various articles and webpages. That's where I got the name and from those articles and webpages I was able to put together the description of Paleoliberalism. As others have commented, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as Wikipedia describes it an encyclopedia is "a written compendium of knowledge". And knowledge is exactly why the article should stay. I created the article as a public service of sorts, for those who my not know the term, but may know the concept. If the article is deleted it will do a great disservice to this website. Therefore I humbly request all of you who have voted for deletion to reconsider your votes and instead vote to Keep out of the spirit of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. -- PaleoLib 17:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As it stands this article fails Verifiability. Please cite some sources and I'll gladly change my vote. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've read it in various articles and webpages. Good. Then cite them -- and because you used the plural, I'm going to have to insist on multiple AND RELIABLE citations.
 * Keep out of the spirit of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. An encyclopedia, a teriary source of information summarizing and documenting existing knowledge, not primary source, not a sounding board, and not a propaganda outlet. Wikipedia should be serving its readers, not its editors. --Calton | Talk 06:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've found a source. Apparently the term was coined by Ludwig von Mises. -- TrojanMan 20:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, so that makes it three people who've discussed this concept, including the article's author! No doubt one day it'll be in all the textbooks... :-)
 * Doing some more digging, that is not a source. It's a blog whihc states that as far as the author knows the term was coined by von Mises.  Other sources say it is older, but none seem to cite any published authority.  I only found one tectbook reference of any sort, a vry brief def in American Heritage Dictionary, which doesn't seem to support half of what this article says. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What does it say? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed your edits. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I agree with the points made by my friend Crevaner, and Sam Spade, as well as those of the author PaleoLib. PL makes a valid point about the purpose of an encyclopedia. -- Judson 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with the statements about bringing things out of obscurity. I knew the concept of "paleoliberalism", but didn't know the word. I thank the person who made the article. -- Voldemort 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "&hellip;but didn't know the word." Perhaps that's because&hellip;(drumroll)&hellip;it isn't the world? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly Merge with Classical Liberalism. The principles espoused in this article are fairly in line with most Libertarian positions, and in fact I can see very little in it that really differs with common notions of Classical Liberalism.  On general principle though, I feel Wikipedia is not a resource of finite bandwidth, or pagespace, as the guideline stated.   Hence, I think it should be kept, but possibly narrowed to tailor itself to focus towards the specific minutiae that separate it from other forms of Libertarian/Individual Rights political ideology. Kade 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about your distinction between liberalism and liberterianism. -Willmcw 01:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are practically synonyms in my view, really. Sorry if I have a habit of flip-flopping between the two of them.  Kade 01:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Overhaul
I just overhauled the article, have a look. Sam Spade 23:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any sources. -Willmcw 23:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. Sam Spade 01:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, I know it was like that when you got there. But the improvements you made don't fix the core problem with the article—that it is all original research. -Willmcw 01:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What if we merged it w Classical_Liberalism? Sam Spade 02:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How would that give it sources? This is a personal essay by user:PaleoLib. If we merge it then it's worse because we wouldn't realize how unsourced it is. (It's like asking a vegetarian "Well, could you eat the meat if we cut it up finely and hid it in a sauce?") The fact is that the word is a slightly-used neologism, and if we wanted to we could accumulate all of the different meanings of the word. But that's dictionary-making. There doesn't seem to be "paleoliberal" movement that uses the word. If there is, we should find sources that atalk about it. Either way, we need sources. -Willmcw 02:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no academic sources, that I can find, that refer to this particular political idea. There are however blog and political publication sources which use it in reference to current events.  Certainly that can warrant it a sub-section inside a much larger, well known sub-ideology of Liberalism? Kade 03:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That'd mean throwing out this article and starting from scratch. But yes, I think that an article (or section) of whatever length would be fine—so long as it is sourced. In this instance political blogs and named forum contributors might be considered appropriate sources. -Willmcw 03:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already voted above, but I want to reiterate: if someone can come up with more than a handful of citations that this word is used with some consistency of meaning, fine, but, otherwise, original research shouldn't be here, adn making it redirect somewhere is likely to be actively misleading, because we've already found multiple uses among the few that exist. If someone comes across a reference to paleoliberal meaning a Nixon-era neoconservative and looks up the word, it's not use to them at all to get a redirect to something else entirely. If we are going to have this in Wikipedia at all, what we need is a decently cited article on how the word has actually been used, linking to the articles that then explain the (diverse) ideologies for which this is an (uncommon) name. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:48, 12 December 2005 (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.