Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (4th nomination) - Knowledge

Source 📝

407:- This has already closed "Keep" at least twice... Notability is not temporary, etc. I will also once again note my strong personal belief that all political parties of confirmed existence, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to size or ideology, should be auto-kept like we auto-keep secondary schools, towns, villages, rivers, professional athletes, etc. This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. 687:
Andrew Withers won his seat as an independent, which from reading various blogs I gather was unopposed. I think this has been wrongly claimed to be a Libertarian UK victory. If I'm wrong, can anyone cite any election won by the party, or alternately provide a link to criteria for keeping that the
885:
in any way I would not have started this AFD. When I checked the facts, I found Withers had stood unopposed as an independent so I updated the article and provided a reference. The box either wrongly refers to Withers or there is an unreported victory -which seems a little unlikely. Regards
465:
Hi Rangoon. My understanding is that Andrew Withers won an election as a parish councillor but in common with most politicians at this level, he stood as an independent. Had the party won a seat under its own name, that would have been notable. Please don't hesitate to correct if I'm wrong.
642:. The Telegraph and Politics.co.uk articles have provided that. Nothing I have seen suggests the party will ever win a seat or otherwise achieve "prominence and success." However that is irrelevant. Had the sources not been found, I would have asked for a redefinition of 480:
If correct then the infobox of the article is wrong. Even so I remain firmly of the view that this is a keep. This project is full of tens of thousands of articles on pop culture detritus, I think we can find a place for an established political party.
865:-- The party exists; it has contested general elections, though it has always failed to win, except at the NN level of parish councillors. Most parish council elections seem to be unopposed. At times it can be a job to find sufficient candidates. 425:
Don't have any problems with notability being permanent. I just can't see that it was ever established at any point in the 4 year history or even via the AFD discussions. According to the Telegraph, its only notable for ..being a mistake! Regards
364:
Actually it's at least the 4th :) and I think I can remember it by a different article name. The solitary reason for deleting is its lack of notability. I've done what I can to improve it i.e. add the Telegraph reference but it simply fails the
606:
is a failed proposal but even had this been adopted this article wouldn't meet the criteria as its never won any election under its own name or had a significant mention in a newspaper. Nor can we just alter the notability criteria. Regards
383:
It's the 4th AfD for this subject matter, but the first AfD was for an article with a slightly different name, so procedure-wise it should say that it's the 3rd nomination. Especially as the last one says that it's the 2nd nomination.
495:
Hi Rangoon, the only election 'victory' known is Andrew Withers and as he stood an independent, that doesn't count, so I also think the infobox is wrong. This was a parish election so I don't even know if it was contested. Regards
621:
I believe that you are basically agreeing with me / reinforcing what I said. My point was that the nominator seemed to be arguing based on prominence and success as a political party rather than wp:gng/wp:notability criteria.
218: 726: 343: 116: 111: 106: 101: 447:- Established political parties are generally inherently notable, and this party is well established and has a seat in local government. The article is needed for proper coverage of contemporary British politics. 88: 792:
moved United Kingdom Libertarian Party which appears the same as the one deleted to this article on the grounds the name was wrong. I'll contact Richard to see if he has any input. BTW have you made a vote?
601:
Hi North8000. I believe the notability guidelines on political parties are the same as everything else. There are lower criteria for musicians, schools etc. The only party political definition I've seen,
708:, by the way. It was a delete. I don't think there's sources out there to warrant this article. Back in the day I created lots of stubs about very minor UK parties, but I sort of regret that now. 905:- Party may be small but it exists and is registered with Electoral Commission. It is not just a front for some commercial and so as a valid political party it should be recognised.-- 212: 96: 518: 705: 538: 284: 316: 171: 178: 558: 788:
Thanks for the info Morwen. Looking at the edits, Libertarian Party UK was deleted on 2 January 2011 and I voted for delete. I don't understand the details but
144: 139: 148: 603: 131: 646:
for political parties. Look forward to seeing you around on shipping articles. At least shipwrecks don't keep resurfacing once down :) Regards
914: 895: 874: 841: 819: 801: 783: 765: 751: 737: 717: 697: 680: 655: 633: 616: 592: 570: 550: 530: 505: 490: 475: 456: 435: 416: 393: 378: 355: 333: 300: 275: 72: 233: 200: 287:
in January 2011 and reappeared with brackets perhaps by accident in November 2011. As there are now two sources, one kindly found by
17: 825: 194: 329: 190: 807: 264: 135: 53: 240: 933: 40: 870: 66: 806:
I intentionally didn't vote. By the way, I've had a poke at the deleted page. It yields another source,
127: 78: 929: 761: 733: 389: 351: 206: 36: 789: 256: 757: 729: 629: 588: 486: 452: 385: 347: 226: 906: 866: 312: 61: 881:
Thanks Peterkingiron. Please be assured, if I really thought the party had won a seat, or meet
910: 566: 546: 526: 412: 325: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
928:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
828:
so those who don't think there should be an article have found the 2 sources needed to meet
815: 779: 747: 713: 676: 826:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alexsingleton/4341751/How_Libertarians_undermine_liberty
260: 259:. I have only been able to find one source capable of conferring notability, ironically a 891: 837: 810:, which is I should say is definitely 1 of the 2 reliable independent sources needed. 797: 693: 651: 612: 501: 482: 471: 448: 431: 374: 296: 271: 882: 829: 643: 366: 639: 562: 542: 522: 408: 320: 581:
I believe that the nominator may be thinking of a different meaning of notability
165: 811: 775: 774:
one to those. If you're being snarky you'd do well to check your facts first.
743: 709: 672: 288: 263:
article suggesting the party shouldn't have been set up in the first place -see
887: 833: 824:
Well done! This really is irony/farce at its best. I have previously added
793: 689: 647: 608: 497: 467: 427: 370: 292: 267: 346:. Also, isn't this the 3rd nomination of this article with this spelling? 832:. I'll leave it at that and thanks to everyone for the contributions. 922:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
742:
Oh, my bad. Still, that one hadn't been linked yet from here.
704:
If anyone's looking for it, the most recent AFD for this was
117:
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (6th nomination)
112:
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)
107:
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (4th nomination)
102:
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (2nd nomination)
291:, I have no objection. I have also updated the article. 89:
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (United Kingdom)
756:
Not checked the top right hand corner of the AfD then?
161: 157: 153: 225: 706:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party UK
285:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party UK
519:
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions
317:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 9
311:
This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
539:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 936:). No further edits should be made to this page. 283:As far as I can see, the article was deleted as 559:list of Politics-related deletion discussions 239: 8: 557:Note: This debate has been included in the 537:Note: This debate has been included in the 517:Note: This debate has been included in the 97:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) 727:No, it wasn't. And the consensus was keep. 556: 536: 516: 604:Knowledge:Notability (political parties) 94: 86: 7: 85: 24: 808:this interview on politics.co.uk 342:- for various reasons given in 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 58: 1: 915:15:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC) 896:18:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 875:17:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 842:20:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 820:19:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 802:18:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 784:18:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 766:17:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 752:16:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 738:14:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 718:10:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 698:18:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC) 681:18:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC) 656:22:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC) 634:01:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC) 617:17:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC) 593:12:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC) 571:15:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC) 551:15:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC) 531:15:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC) 506:17:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC) 491:16:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC) 476:15:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC) 457:15:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC) 394:10:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC) 315:). I have transcluded it to 301:18:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC) 73:00:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC) 770:No, the one I mention is an 436:23:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 417:23:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 379:22:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 356:22:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 334:20:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 276:19:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 265:Talk:Libertarian Party (UK) 953: 638:My sole requirement was 2 925:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 128:Libertarian Party (UK) 84:AfDs for this article: 79:Libertarian Party (UK) 255::This article lacks 688:party satisfies? 309:Automated comment: 48:The result was 573: 553: 533: 336: 54:non-admin closure 944: 927: 640:reliable sources 627: 586: 344:the previous AfD 323: 307: 244: 243: 229: 181: 169: 151: 69: 64: 60: 34: 952: 951: 947: 946: 945: 943: 942: 941: 940: 934:deletion review 923: 671:per Rangoon11-- 623: 582: 321: 261:daily telegraph 254: 186: 177: 142: 126: 123: 121: 82: 67: 62: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 950: 948: 939: 938: 918: 917: 899: 898: 878: 877: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 721: 720: 701: 700: 684: 683: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 596: 595: 575: 574: 554: 534: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 460: 459: 441: 440: 439: 438: 420: 419: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 359: 358: 337: 304: 303: 278: 250: 247: 246: 183: 122: 120: 119: 114: 109: 104: 99: 93: 92: 91: 83: 81: 76: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 949: 937: 935: 931: 926: 920: 919: 916: 912: 908: 904: 901: 900: 897: 893: 889: 884: 880: 879: 876: 872: 868: 867:Peterkingiron 864: 861: 860: 843: 839: 835: 831: 827: 823: 822: 821: 817: 813: 809: 805: 804: 803: 799: 795: 791: 787: 786: 785: 781: 777: 773: 769: 768: 767: 763: 759: 755: 754: 753: 749: 745: 741: 740: 739: 735: 731: 728: 725: 724: 723: 722: 719: 715: 711: 707: 703: 702: 699: 695: 691: 686: 685: 682: 678: 674: 670: 667: 666: 657: 653: 649: 645: 641: 637: 636: 635: 631: 626: 620: 619: 618: 614: 610: 605: 600: 599: 598: 597: 594: 590: 585: 580: 577: 576: 572: 568: 564: 560: 555: 552: 548: 544: 540: 535: 532: 528: 524: 520: 515: 507: 503: 499: 494: 493: 492: 488: 484: 479: 478: 477: 473: 469: 464: 463: 462: 461: 458: 454: 450: 446: 443: 442: 437: 433: 429: 424: 423: 422: 421: 418: 414: 410: 406: 403: 402: 395: 391: 387: 382: 381: 380: 376: 372: 368: 363: 362: 361: 360: 357: 353: 349: 345: 341: 338: 335: 331: 327: 324: 318: 314: 310: 306: 305: 302: 298: 294: 290: 286: 282: 279: 277: 273: 269: 266: 262: 258: 257:wp:notability 253: 249: 248: 242: 238: 235: 232: 228: 224: 220: 217: 214: 211: 208: 205: 202: 199: 196: 192: 189: 188:Find sources: 184: 180: 176: 173: 167: 163: 159: 155: 150: 146: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 124: 118: 115: 113: 110: 108: 105: 103: 100: 98: 95: 90: 87: 80: 77: 75: 74: 71: 70: 65: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 924: 921: 902: 862: 771: 668: 624: 583: 578: 444: 404: 339: 308: 280: 251: 236: 230: 222: 215: 209: 203: 197: 187: 174: 57: 49: 47: 31: 28: 213:free images 59:-- Cheers, 790:Richard BB 772:additional 930:talk page 863:Weak keep 625:North8000 584:North8000 563:• Gene93k 543:• Gene93k 523:• Gene93k 483:Rangoon11 449:Rangoon11 37:talk page 932:or in a 758:Lukeno94 730:Lukeno94 386:Lukeno94 348:Lukeno94 172:View log 39:or in a 907:Robnock 409:Carrite 322:Snotbot 219:WP refs 207:scholar 145:protect 140:history 68:Huntley 883:WP:GNG 830:WP:GNG 812:Morwen 776:Morwen 744:Morwen 710:Morwen 673:Neo139 644:wp:GNG 367:wp:gng 313:step 3 289:Morwen 252:Delete 191:Google 149:delete 369:test. 234:JSTOR 195:books 179:Stats 166:views 158:watch 154:links 63:Riley 16:< 911:talk 903:Keep 892:talk 888:JRPG 871:talk 838:talk 834:JRPG 816:Talk 798:talk 794:JRPG 780:Talk 762:talk 748:Talk 734:talk 714:Talk 694:talk 690:JRPG 677:talk 669:Keep 652:talk 648:JRPG 630:talk 613:talk 609:JRPG 589:talk 579:Keep 567:talk 547:talk 527:talk 502:talk 498:JRPG 487:talk 472:talk 468:JRPG 453:talk 445:Keep 432:talk 428:JRPG 413:talk 405:Keep 390:talk 375:talk 371:JRPG 352:talk 340:Keep 297:talk 293:JRPG 281:Keep 272:talk 268:JRPG 227:FENS 201:news 162:logs 136:talk 132:edit 50:keep 332:» 319:. 241:TWL 170:– ( 52:. ( 913:) 894:) 873:) 840:) 818:) 800:) 782:) 764:) 750:) 736:) 716:) 696:) 679:) 654:) 632:) 615:) 591:) 569:) 561:. 549:) 541:. 529:) 521:. 504:) 489:) 474:) 455:) 434:) 415:) 392:) 377:) 354:) 328:• 299:) 274:) 221:) 164:| 160:| 156:| 152:| 147:| 143:| 138:| 134:| 56:) 909:( 890:( 869:( 836:( 814:( 796:( 778:( 760:( 746:( 732:( 712:( 692:( 675:( 650:( 628:( 611:( 587:( 565:( 545:( 525:( 500:( 485:( 470:( 451:( 430:( 411:( 388:( 373:( 350:( 330:c 326:t 295:( 270:( 245:) 237:· 231:· 223:· 216:· 210:· 204:· 198:· 193:( 185:( 182:) 175:· 168:) 130:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
non-admin closure
Riley
Huntley
00:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Libertarian Party (UK)
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (United Kingdom)
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK)
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (2nd nomination)
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (4th nomination)
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (6th nomination)
Libertarian Party (UK)
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Stats
Google
books
news
scholar

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.