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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National 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)

A totally unsourced article. No evidence that this is even a real subject; could be original research. Even if it is a real subject, there is no evidence that it is notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Everything it talks about is already covered in other political articles, plus the existence of "National libertarianism" is questionable at best. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No references whatsoever in article; but also unimprovable: everything that could be used as a source is not an RS but a blog and/or forum post. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 22:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unsourced neologism, verging on a hoax. There is a Stormfront discussion thread called "National Libertarianism?" among the less than 900 Google hits for this exact pairing of words, so I won't actually throw up the hoax flag. But it is very, very close. Complete and utter failure of GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Speaking of Stormfront, it looks like some sort of essay from that site. I suppose it could come back with proper sourcing and a clearer demonstration of notability, but I kind of doubt that it will succeed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No references so it is original research. The flag images in the article appear to have been drawn for the article and should be deleted too. TFD (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic. Incorrectly referenced by person adding links to it in other articles.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please sign your !vote. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2014 (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.