Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small-l libertarianism


 * 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   redirect to Libertarianism. Not quite enough consensus to outright delete, so just a redirect. Any merger from the history is subject to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  12:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Small-l libertarianism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is an essay without any sources or references. The term "small-l" is used to be clear the reference is not to the political party of that name. However Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouln't it just redirect to libertarianism. Any regional difference in the term will be dealt with in that article.  The whole point of the term is to distinguish it from The Libertarian Party.  Pirate Argh!!1! 22:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe Libertarian can be a disamg page pointint to libertarianism and the differetn libertarian parties, like the liberal page does now? Pirate Argh!!1! 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to libertarianism. if someone can find a reference to the term being used, a mention in the article would make sense.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with libertarianism, maybe as a section? Eric S. Raymond describes it in his libertarianism FAQ. --Glantrischmozzle (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider Eric S. Raymond a reliable source on politics, as this is not his area of expertise. *** Crotalus *** 15:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Found in popular literature as a term Referred to as a specific term in books on the topic    Multiple thousands of blog usages (showing it is a term in current common usage).  Thus meets notability, usage in books on the topic, and common usage. Collect (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what dictionaries are for. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And for newspaper references? Seems that where substance is found on a topic which would not properly be placed in a dictionary, that it belongs in an "encyclopedia.",  magazine usage etc. Hence not a dictionary entry at that point. Collect (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect per nom. Verbal chat  18:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete and redirect - even dictionaries don't usually list explanatory phrases of transient and localized use. Useful as disambiguation, so could just be a redirect to Libertarianism which has an otheruses link. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The term is common enough to deserve an entry in a dictionary, however, once defined, there isn't enough meat for an article separate from the obvious "libertarianism" which already exists. If the editor had provided some evidence that there is a rich history behind the phrasing, there might be potential for an article, but the article as it stands is nothing more than a dictionary definition.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:23, 8 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.
 * Keep if find some WP:RS which I believe are out there. Merge to Libertarianism if not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)