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. All the "keep"s look like socks of the first now-blocked poster.  Sandstein  09:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Center-libertarianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a POV fork that does not summarize what reliable sources report but rather gives a single editor's opinion. Far too often the cited sources simply do not say what they are cited for. The main source is this website that clearly does not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. What remains are largely sources that do not mention Center-libertarianism (or centrist libertarianism), plus a few opinion pieces and blog posts. If all badly-sourced content is removed, literally nothing remains. The page should be deleted and a redirect to the main libertarianism article put in its place again. Huon (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Huon has been harassing me ever since we could not reach a consensus on a different page. Now he is going after a well established article that already passed initial vetting with wikipedia admins. The fact he tracks down every page I edit and wants to delete them is getting ridiculous. I dont have time to go on wikipedia every hour and defend against his arguments. As for it being POV fork that is simply not true, its written from a neutral point of view and certainly covers criticisms.LuckyLag360 (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even though I seem to be one. A WP article needs secondary sources establishing that the topic exists and is called by that name. They do not seem to be here. The different shades of libertarianism should be discussed in Libertarianism itself, and/or in some kind of spin-off like "Libertarian policies" or whatever.Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which I tried to add to the Libertarianism article but it was rejected by non other than Huon. LuckyLag360 (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I checked every single instance where the new source which LuckyLag360 added mentions libertarianism. It does not say what LuckyLag360 cites it for; it does not mention Center-libertarianism. Also for the record, the content at the Libertarianism article was based on exactly the same unreliable sources that form the basis of this page. These sources, and content based on them, have no place on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record are you claiming centrist libertarianism and moderate libertarianism doesn't exist? And are you actually reading the sources and what there for or just being deceptive and making straw man articles? LuckyLag360 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I claim about the existence of centrist and/or moderate libertarianism is irrelevant. Regarding the source, you are welcome to prove me wrong by quoting the part of the new source (preferably accompanied by a page number so others can more easily verify the quote) that mentions center-libertarianism and says it advocates "a slow transition out of the modern welfare state once the economy is strong". Huon (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it obviously is extremely relevant to this discussion. And I have no plans to address straw man arguments. LuckyLag360 (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sources. The only thing that comes up on a Google News search is the article itself. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This individual, luckylag360, has the right to post different types of political thought as articles, especially if it will add more in depth information to the subject matter. There are different forms of liberalism and conservatism, whether it would be radical social liberalism or moderate social liberalism, to radical cultural conservatism or moderate cultural conservatism. These subjects by themselves should be articles within Wikipedia's library of information. Just as there are extremists and moderates on both the left and right political spectrums respectively, there are indeed extremists and moderates within the libertarian political spectrum. I do not see any justification as to delete an article that gives another perspective in the philosophy of libertarianism. In fact, this would be a violation to his 1st amendment right to freedom of speech and press. I demand that luckylag360 have his right to free speech and press be respected to the fullest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhantomRaider95 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's pretty clearly a POV fork. The sources were rejected at Talk:Libertarianism, and LuckyLag360 instead wrote this article to push his or her POV. Once better sources are found, it can be discussed at the main article once again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk)
• Delete. I don't think this is a matter of whether or not this sect of libertarianism exists or not, it's more so the fact that the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards in the first place. To have an article allowed you need a certain criteria of sources. This article cites directly from the one piece of literature online that already exists about center-libertariansim. It then goes on to cite individuals from entirely different political scopes as "references". Yes, while there are varying degrees of political thought inside libertarianism, this isn't oppressing free speech to say this specific article needs heavily modification before it can be allowed. Like others have said it's very much the views of one person. Until that can be changed, this article should be deleted. Revision and peer-editing is necessary before a new article on this topic is created. Semmendinger (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've been a silent observer of this hole thing until now. I've noticed Huon has been trying to get luckylag360 banned as well as hounding him multiple times, however luckylag360 has not acted correctly and deservedly so got banned for two weeks for his retaliation edits. However this article clearly meets wikipedia standards and is an important article. Therefor it should not be deleted. ThepoliticalLib (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC) ThepoliticalLib was blocked as a sock of LuckyLag360. Huon (talk) 23:45, 11 November 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.