Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secular 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   keep. henrik • talk  20:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Secular liberalism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Might be a topic, but there's nothing worth keeping in this highly POV personal essay that's entirely dependent on original interpretation and synthesis. Blow it up and start over - a redlink might prompt someone who's interested in following policy to write an article from scratch, but keeping this mess will just deter people from wading in to make it better. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think one of the problems here on Wikipedia is that some "compulsive" editors have no ability (or capability?) to write articles and unfortunately GVnayR is one of these editors. He's very polite and all that stuff, but writing articles... is definitely not his strong point. If someone can't edit video games articles properly or decently, I don't want to imagine about the other topics... like Secular liberalism. Well... but let's see the "positive" side: at least he started the article. Perhaps he can rewrite it? I (still) have faith in him. --Hydao (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Nuke it to a 1 sentence stub, save the references and start over Looks like a real topic, and has some real references, but the article isn't an article, it's a POV essay. Ping me if you want me to handle it. North8000 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete''' as a POV essay with footnotes tagged on. Carrite (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am fixing the POV, have started rewriting. (Any comments on changes so far?) A412  (Talk * C) 05:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep POV, but lacks salient points of secular liberalism. The article should address the topic, rather than periphery discussions. I've put up some of my most humble suggestions on the talk page. I've love to jump in, but this stuff is a powder keg and we're giving off sparks. Bunston (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, I concur with Carrite, plus there is no evidence "secular liberalism" is a distinct philosophy or political movement of note. Anything worth preserving here can be merged into established articles such as liberalism, secularism and separation of church and state. -- BTfromLA (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't add anything that we don't already have with liberalism and secularism... except for POV. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - but reduce it to a 1 paragraph stub, save the references, and give the article a fresh start - I FINALLY admit that I do a better job editing Wikipedia articles that have already been created as opposed to creating new articles from scratch. But I consider it to be fun to create articles about new concepts on Wikipedia and would like to see someone with better Wikipedia "skills" improve on this article than to see it deleted. GVnayR (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment If you read the article and refs thoroughly it does seem like a topic distinct from both liberalism and secularism. The current article revision, IMO, has much POV removed. A412  (Talk * C) 23:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Even with the POV supposedly fixed, it still reads like an essay by a sophomore at Bob Jones University who failed English composition. "Secular liberalism is often attributed to being for social equality and freedom." Really? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AFD is not cleanup. A412  (Talk * C) 23:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an essay, and additionally fails POV and OR regulations. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain how this is an essay, or original research? Everything is referenced and encyclopedic. Sorry if I seem obtrusive, I just don't see how this article doesn't meet those criteria. A412  (Talk * C) 23:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, it isn't even a good essay. The treatment is shallow as talk radio and the references are—to be kind—insufficient and agenda-driven. As Roscelese says, there's nothing worth keeping, although the topic probably deserves an entry. If anyone would want to write it, such sources as this, this, and this might be useful, but as it stands it's nothing but a POV battlefield waiting for the OR warriors to arrive. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B  music  ian  03:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to secularism - I'm not convinced there's any meaningful difference between them. Robofish (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - there has been substantial change here and I'll stand down from my earlier delete recommendation. Still not sure as to whether it's a fork, but we're certainly in the range now where honest people may differ on that question. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, what started as more or less a "conservative exposé" is now a pretty straightforward NPOV piece after a full rewrite, and those of you who have advised deletion above would be advised to revisit this. Merge target has moved from secular humanism to liberal democracy, putting it another way... Carrite (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that I've seen the improvements to the article, I had decided to upgrade my vote into a full-fledged Keep. Instead of being stripped down a single paragraph, the entire article should be kept and expanded on some more. GVnayR (talk) 23:30, 20 February 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.