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 speedy keep. Consensus is that the sources clearly support notability of the subject. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal socialism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Liberal socialism makes no intellectual sense, at all. It's complete bullshit. Anyone with half a brain and a drive to study socialist literature understands this: that socialism is incompatible with liberalism. This article shouldn't exist, it's ridiculous. I propose that this article is to be deleted after we combine useful content with the welfare capitalism and social democracy articles. The liberal socialism article is in direction contradiction to the socialism, capitalism, mixed economy, social democracy, welfare capitalism, and democratic socialism articles. None of these articles support the idea of socialism being compatible with liberalism, or the idea of mixing socialism and capitalism. All of these articles at the moment do accept that socialism can arise from capitalism either through revolution or through gradual change. None of these articles claim that you can have both at the same time. The social democracy and welfare capitalism articles literally describe everything that is in this article, yet this article stands in contradiction. Unless everything else is wrong, it makes no sense to maintain this article. Thank you. SpaceMilk (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This article was nominated with no mention or citation of any Wikipedia deletion or inclusion policies. Clearly a notable and highly referenced article subject that has significant cultural, historical, political, societal, and economical impact. Passes WP:GNG by a mile. This seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a reason to list an article for AfD. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as above, seems an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on behalf on an individual editor. The article is relatively well-referenced, and explains the ideology in relation to similar ideas (social democracy, social liberalism, etc) so has genuine merit.--Autospark (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more serious analysis of issues the nom obviously has no idea about our deletion guidelines. The artilce clearly has multiple serious sources. And the term has lots of google hits. HOwever the nom may have a point. Therefore the voters here must not jump to obvious conclusions and look at the sources to check whether the article is original research, a WP:SYNTH from various sources. üser:Altenmann >t 15:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems pretty clear that the author has a personal vendetta against this article, but they fail to give any reason why the content/sources of the article are incorrect. -IagoQnsi (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Distinct ideology, different from "socialism" per se—let alone "social liberalism". Well crafted and sourced article. --Checco (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced. AfD isn't a venue to debate politics. WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems relevant as others have stated. CambodianSandwich (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In reply to @Altenmann: I've read through the article and checked some of the citations and there doesn't appear to be any obvious WP:SYNTH going on; the article seems to me a relatively straightforward statement of historical facts. I'm mildly concerned that the article is presenting several discrete historical movements with the same name as one thing, but that's something that can be hashed out by editors of the article, not a matter for AfD. Otherwise I don't see any radical problems with the article, and the nom certainly doesn't give any good reason to delete it. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability of this topic is substantiated by the sources cited in this article; any disputes about content can be worked out on its talk page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2016 (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.