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, as there is a consensus that the sources added to the article during this discussion are sufficient to establish the notability of this term. John254 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative liberalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This sounds exactly like Classical liberalism or Libertarianism. There are no references to show that any such variant of liberalism is separately recognized. Alksub 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete exactly for the reasons Alksub gives. It is interesting that many European political parties are listed. Perhaps "conservative liberalism" is a term used in Europe. If so, prove it. Noroton 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Indeed conservative liberalism is a well know ideology in Europe, as it is clearly described in the article, and, as it is a different concept to liberal conservatism, it deserves a Wikipedia article. --Checco 23:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless it can be sourced. Keep. it's been sourced. Into The Fray ^T/C 01:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely unsourced, appears to be WP:OR. -- Kesh 02:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to either Classical liberalism or Libertarianism for good measure. If someone thought that this phrase was important enough to have an article about it, it is probably at least a well-enough used phrase/descriptor for something that exists under more common names that a redirect would be warranted. Perhaps also merge additional pertinent information if there is any. LaMenta3 03:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Does not seem to be enough information here to warrant a full article, but seems to be enough importance to deserve a placeholder. Perhaps a sub-heading under a larger article would be appropriate. Do not claim to be an expert in European politics, but if people will be searching for this term and expecting to see a particular political party, perhaps add a disambiguation page for parties that identify themselves as "Conservative Liberals." Ben P. 12:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the term is oft-used in Europe to characterize a separate brand of (European) liberalism. The term has been used by prominent students of European political parties such as Peter Mair and Michael Gallagher. I have provided some references now, but we can certainly find more. Note that if a term is only used in Europe (or even in non-English languages) this does not warrant its deletion (see the non-deletion of translating "law" in different European languages and the article Rechtsstaat). A merger/redirect with libertarianism would be mistaken (and very American POV), because of conservative liberalism hard stances on war, multiculturalism and crime. C mon 07:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The term is commonly used in the UK (part of Europe). And we speak English the last time i looked. Operating 20:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is such a philosophy, and there are sufficient differences with classic liberalism to warrant an entry, although it does need referenced.Traditional unionist 07:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the burden of proof is now on the proposer. References seem to indicate notability. If the page is not kept, please do not redirect as the term appears to have a distinct but related meaning and redirection would convey the sense that the two are identical. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This seems to be a well-written article which explains the fine distinction between this and other related ideologies. Colonel Warden 16:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the reasons above. BTW Conservative liberalism is not the same as libertarianism. That is a misunderstanding with American libertarians. Electionworld Talk? 17:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This philosophy is mine. It is most accurately described in The Economist newspaper. It is essentially right wing economically (privatise everything) but left wing on social issues (ban hanging and guns). Liberalism means different things in Europe and the US which may confuse some. Operating 20:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Isn't it more so that the political center of gravity is shifted towards conservatism in the US (or towards social-democracy in Europe depending on your point of view), than that liberalism being a different on each side of the pond? --Victor falk 01:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No. They're two different concepts. For example in Europe liberalism means less State intervention and free trade, in the US it means basically more State intervention and protectionism. --Checco 02:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I see it, moderate (centrist) Republicans and Democrats are equivalent to (have the same political goals as) "the Right" in Europe (conservative and liberal parties), while left-wing Democrats are equivalent to the European social-democrats and socialists. --Victor falk 02:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not as you see. Moderate Democrats are not liberal (neither in the American sense) indeed (liberals in the US are similar to social-democrats, that's true) and they are fairly more left-wing than European conservative and liberal parties on many issues. For these reasons I can't understand what you're arguing. --Checco 15:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for reasons stated previously. Better sourcing would help, though.--JayJasper 12:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per C mon. --PaxEquilibrium 22:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per C mon. —Nightstallion 12:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.