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 per WP:SNOW. This is a long-established position in modern philosophy, and the term "libertarianism" is used widely in the literature.[1] This topic is distinct from, though related to, libertarianism in political philosophy [2][3]. The only reason "(metaphysics)" is attached to the name of this article is for disambiguation purposes; software, not semantics. Skomorokh 08:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism (metaphysics)[edit]

Libertarianism (metaphysics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Delete I can not find this as an article or topic in any of the standard philosophy encyclopedias. This break away neologism that now makes it invalid to call supports of Free will against determinism, -libertarians. Rather or not their defense be steeped in metaphysics, simple because no one calls their position this term. Those whom support free will and who deny compatiblism are now is not libertarian because no one may have used used this term (Libertarianism (metaphysics)) to describe their position of supporting free will against determinism. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve: usage is attested to by multiple sources, see article for references. Having said which, the article definitely needs to be chopped down substantially to only that content which can be directly supported by the references given. -- The Anome (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a fake issue raised by an editor who doesn't understand how disambiguation works on WP. 1Z (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the article needs work, libertarianism in metaphysics is a 200 year old concept with all sorts of WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Speedy Keep This article was correctly stubbed a couple of weeks ago because of previous WP:OR issues. There are numerous editors who are currently working to improve both the content and the referencing of this article. As Carrol notes, the concept is over 200 years old, and there are many, many modern references that are being discussed on the talk page. Since the original usage of the word is over 200 years old (see refs in article), and this usage continues to this day (see many many refs on the talk page, some of which have been added to the article), in exactly the context we are using it here, WP:NEO certainly does not apply. Edhubbard (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote above from keep to speedy keep, as it is becoming clearer and clearer that the nom'er is abusing AFD in order to make a WP:POINT in what is, in essence a content dispute, and one that he is clearly in the wrong on, based on the massive number of references that he is now continuing to ignore that have been added to the talk page. Edhubbard (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep See above. { Ben S. Nelson } 23:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per arguments of Edhubbard. Yworo (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2009 (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.