Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neolibertarianism (2nd nomination)

: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. — Aitias // discussion 00:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Neolibertarianism]]=

AfDs for this article:

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neolibertarianism}}

:{{la|Neolibertarianism}} ([{{fullurl:Neolibertarianism|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neolibertarianism (2nd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

As much as this political ideology sounds very good, there's not much advocates of it or any systematic treatise written on it. The old content traces its historical roots and its proponents (Boortz, Elder, O'Rouke) but some committed people keep deleting it. If some contents are there, there's a reason for them to be there. If deleting those contents with a even a better reason would eviscerate the whole article, it is rather wise not to have the article at all (as the empty vane article would be a waste). For now, the non-notable status of this political doctrine indicates that it does not yet merit a Wikipedia article, and this AFD is in order. Wandering Courier (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete - sounds like OR. Comprehensive academic database search turned up zero hits, and only two on "neolibertarian," neither of which addressed the term as such but only use it in an ad hoc, neologistic way. J L G 4 1 0 4 00:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete - because people keep putting back unsourced info, including regarding BLP, but refuse to source it, incuding to third parties. Plus WP:Neologism issues and Self-promotion issues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete I'm not convinced by the sources present that this is a notable philosophy - they do not strike me as reliable - and I can't find anything else substantial. As it is, a lot of the article appears to be original research. Guest9999 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 20 January 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.