- 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. MBisanz talk 00:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Paleoliberalism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In the course of the first nomination, some sources were found to prove that this term has been used by a number of authors. Still, people use a great many of terms and neologisms that don't necessarily constitute a school of thought in its own right. If the term is used to denote either of left-wing socialists, liberal policy hawks, or right-wing paleolibertarians, covering almost the whole area of political orientations, then it obviously doesn't constitute a real current but is an ambiguous (self)designation that is best presented as a DAB page. PanchoS ( talk) 08:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Incoherent attempt at a dictionary definition about a non-notable neologism. This is clearly a play on paleoconservatism, which is a real thing, with self-described adherents and substantial coverage in secondary sources. There is no such thing as paleoliberalism — no self-described adherents and virtually zero use of the phrase outside of a handful of chattering public intellectuals trying to hammer out a column. Carrite ( talk) 17:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete - I've only seen it used, in full context, in a single article in the New Yorker. Too soon. Bearian ( talk) 18:11, 7 July 2016 (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.
- 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. MBisanz talk 00:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Paleoliberalism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In the course of the first nomination, some sources were found to prove that this term has been used by a number of authors. Still, people use a great many of terms and neologisms that don't necessarily constitute a school of thought in its own right. If the term is used to denote either of left-wing socialists, liberal policy hawks, or right-wing paleolibertarians, covering almost the whole area of political orientations, then it obviously doesn't constitute a real current but is an ambiguous (self)designation that is best presented as a DAB page. PanchoS ( talk) 08:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Incoherent attempt at a dictionary definition about a non-notable neologism. This is clearly a play on paleoconservatism, which is a real thing, with self-described adherents and substantial coverage in secondary sources. There is no such thing as paleoliberalism — no self-described adherents and virtually zero use of the phrase outside of a handful of chattering public intellectuals trying to hammer out a column. Carrite ( talk) 17:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete - I've only seen it used, in full context, in a single article in the New Yorker. Too soon. Bearian ( talk) 18:11, 7 July 2016 (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.