707:
keep, although not with any amount of conviction. There is direct and in-depth mention of them across a number of secondary sources, but we ought to be cautious about embellishing the article with too much. It quickly turns into a promotional piece for their leaders and candidates otherwise. The fact that they seldom contest elections and always do very badly doesn't negate the fact that they are mildly visible in the media and it is possible to find a reasonable amount of independent discussion of them.
796:, but really just enough to push them over the line. If you go check the fifth nomination discussion, you can see a list of AfDs of British political parties from December 2014. All of them were kept except one, which was a recreation of an article already deleted. Some of the articles that were kept were more poorly sourced than this one. The reason for this is that being registered as a party and participating in elections make you notable as well, which was the argument used to keep most of them.
728:— Thanks for your contributions both to this discussion and to the article. I'd be interested to see the additional material you've found about them, because I don't think that the referencing used in this article is enough to satisfy the GNG, with online magazine interviews with the party's leaders and a short newspaper blogpost.
1116:
of content, let alone of a subject in the encyclopedia. That's determined by notability. Lots of companies are registered with
Companies House that participate in the economy. That doesn't mean they're notable. (This is a comment in general and about the Libertarian Party rather than about the Above
992:
there are 468 registered
British parties. The requirements for registering and standing candidates are extremely low. You don't even need to register your party either – not registering just means you can't put the party logo on the ballot papers. There is no way that they are all notable so the
688:
I would support turning any salvageable content from the article into a section of another page, rather than deleting it outright. Since they stand in by-elections, I would appreciate somewhere to link to (even if it is just an article on
Libertarianism generally). On that note, keep the party colour
314:
I missed the subsequent four AfD discussions with Keep results, which was quite an embarrassing oversight... I've read through those discussions now, but I have been unable to find any compelling reasons that the subject meets notability criteria. There appear to have been lots of arguments presented
875:
I think you're referring to a reply above. I'm sorry for using language with specific meaning in a casual sense; my intention was to describe the material as not constituting terribly substantial coverage. I think the argument from the last nomination I linked above does a good job of dealing with
472:
Precedent is in favour of Keep. A nomination for deletion spree of minor UK parties in december of 2014 lead to all of them haveng Keep results except 1, which was a recreation of an article already deleted with nothing but self-published sources. This article is better sourced than many of these
1058:
another user articulating the point better than I can. As you've asked why I nominated this article for deletion, I came to it from the
Lewisham by-election article and started looking at how to tidy it up and move it away from reliance on self-sourcing. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to
1013:
Being a registered party and standing in election shows the seriousness of the organisation, as well as giving them verifiability on all the official records. Seeing that political parties have always been kept in Afd when their notability was only partially established, these arguments cannot be
957:
The GNG requires substantial coverage. To my reading, the user you've quoted is arguing that the sources provided don't constitute substantial coverage. You're welcome to ping the user in question to clarify their argument and the substance of the now-deleted article — as they voted delete in the
908:
The contribution of the
Telegraph blogpost towards meeting the GNG is also dealt with in the linked !vote better than I can. The contribution you've cited there is from a user arguing that as the Telegraph blogpost and the now-extinct Bristol Post piece are the best sources available, notability
706:
I've reformatted the article and cut out some of the truly non-notable content, as well as re-using some sources and introducing a few more. There are pretty few secondary sources on the party, but I wouldn't describe it as an instant WP:GNG fail. Having trawled for more I'm willing to side with
494:
As the editor who tried time and time again to delete this article, can I try one last time. They have never satisfied notability guidelines. No media coverage, no election success, no notable people involved. I argued over each and every deletion attempt that they were not notable enough for
660:
how did this survive so many prior AfDs? The article is source-bombed, but they're all primary sources to election results or the party's own website, deadlinks, or a couple non-trivial articles! I had difficulty finding any independent sources during a
434:"routine election converage" is an argument used to dismiss individual non-elected candidates in elections, which aren't notable unless they are elected. Individual candidates need to show outstanding coverage to be considered notable, like
376:. It's usually conferred by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. One article in the Telegraph does not meet the general notability guideline, which requires multiple reliable sources.
211:
109:
104:
99:
94:
412:. "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Both articles are from the late 2000's — the party hasn't received
442:
as an organisation. The
Libertarian Party UK meets this by virtue of their multiple RS and their participation in elections. Also: the Libertarian Party UK did receive multiple third party coverage subsequently.
1053:
That's the argument that has been made before, and on the basis of which the article has been kept before. I haven't seen a policy basis provided any of the times that this argument has been invoked — and I've
254:
559:. I apologise if my question was a touch pointed or rude, it was not intended to be, and I could have asked you away from this page rather than draw attention to it here. Thanks for your response :)
923:
No, those make the subject meet the GNG, which is the position I advocate. Combined with the fact it is a registered political party which stood in elections, then the article must be kept.
778:
The IB Times reference and primary sources definitely don't satisfy the GNG... Where is it established that political parties have a lower threshold for notability that the GNG requirement?
967:
With regard to the party being registered and having stood in elections, I have not seen any editor provide a policy basis for the claim that this contributes towards inclusion criteria.
315:
that the party's article should exist by virtue of the party being active and standing candidates in national elections. Those do not seem to me like adequate arguments for inclusion.
810:
I understand that the use of this argument led to several 'keep' decision is previous AfDs. I don't understand the policy basis, and I haven't seen it demonstrated to my satisfaction.
205:
89:
637:
275:
Rather than delete outright, I suggest that the information about this party be merged and redirected into the
Libertarianism in the United Kingdom article as its own subsection.
597:
250:
405:
420:, failure to receive more than trivial coverage subsequent to the party's first year of existence does not count in its favour with regard to its lasting notability.
408:. The politics.co.uk interview constitutes, to at least some extent, routine election coverage. I don't think that these two sources mean that the article meets the
171:
617:
164:
1035:: Any registered political party that contests national elections is notable, no matter how minor. One wonders why this is being brought up for the seventh time.
857:, I have never seen this argument being successfully used against a political party, and their "routine coverage" is instead used to demonstrate they do meet the
334:: Added a third party source. This party is notable because it is active and runs candidates in elections. This should make it so we presume notability outright.
1059:
build an encyclopedic article from, and further that it doesn't have enough substantial coverage to pass the general notability guideline. In the end I only
989:
137:
132:
750:
141:
124:
246:. No inline sources represent significant coverage in reliable sources, and I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources.
372:
Being active and running candidates in elections doesn't confer notability in any way that's consistent with
Knowledge policies or guidelines.
988:, for all the reasons I gave last time. Forming a political party in the UK is simple. Any small bunch of crazies can do it. According to
1126:
1108:
1090:
1072:
1044:
1023:
1004:
976:
932:
918:
903:
885:
870:
844:
835:
which more clearly articulates my view on the article's relationship with the GNG, and registration contribution to notability, than I can.
805:
787:
769:
737:
716:
698:
680:
649:
629:
609:
582:
568:
550:
524:
504:
482:
452:
429:
399:
385:
367:
343:
324:
302:
284:
266:
72:
66:
226:
890:
I see. However, this party did recieve coverage in multiple secondary sources. There is the
Telegraph article and the one described in
193:
763:
853:
for clarification on what is and is not routine coverage. While non-elected candidates are usually considered non-notable as per
993:
closing admin should discount out of hand any rationale that claims this party is notable by way of having stood in elections.
17:
187:
183:
669:
pretty easily. I have never seen a guideline showing presumptive notability for a registered political party, either.
413:
128:
293:
That seems sensible to me — though there's precious little material in this article other than from primary sources.
233:
1149:
645:
625:
605:
40:
61:
999:
675:
537:. I also never made any edits on any page regarding libertarianism. I truly believe that this article meets
1078:
757:
354:
RS linked in the article. This, on top of the party actually running in elections, makes the article meet
120:
78:
1145:
712:
694:
199:
36:
909:
criteria are not met and therefore the article should be deleted. Which is a position I also advocate.
358:. I change my !vote to Speedy Keep: after 6 nominations, we shouldn't even be discussing this anymore.
1099:
is a registered party that participated in elections, giving them verifiability in official records.
850:
641:
621:
601:
534:
280:
276:
1086:
564:
520:
500:
219:
56:
53:
1122:
1104:
1068:
1040:
1019:
994:
972:
928:
914:
899:
881:
866:
840:
832:
801:
783:
752:
plus the various primary references is enough. There are still content issues with the article.
733:
670:
578:
546:
515:. Do you have any direct connection with the Libertarian Party which you might need to disclose?
478:
448:
425:
395:
381:
363:
339:
320:
298:
262:
1095:
Yes, the party you linked is notable as well. It has reliable coverage from secondary sources,
854:
753:
417:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1144:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1081:
are notable? Knowledge can't be a holding pen for each and every attempt at party politics.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
725:
708:
690:
662:
373:
351:
894:, which sadly has succombed to link rot, but can still be used to establish notability.
390:
There is also a source from
Politics.co.uk., so it does have multiple Reliable Sources.
1113:
1082:
560:
516:
496:
1118:
1100:
1064:
1036:
1015:
968:
924:
910:
895:
877:
862:
836:
797:
793:
779:
729:
666:
574:
556:
542:
538:
511:
474:
444:
439:
421:
409:
391:
377:
359:
355:
335:
316:
294:
258:
243:
529:
No. I'm not even british, nor a libertarian. You can see on my userpage that I am a
158:
876:
the coverage. In particular, the consideration of interview material as primary.
1063:
and nominated the article for deletion. Hopefully that clarifies my motivation.
858:
438:. For political parties, this is different, they only need to show they meet
435:
541:, which is the consensus position of the 5 previous Afds for this article.
530:
249:
This article has been deleted before, twice, under different names,
404:
The Telegraph article is a now-deleted blog post that can be read
1140:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
749:
the notability bar for political parties is extremely low, and
958:
last AfD, I'm wary of canvassing behaviour by doing so myself.
473:
articles, and this one got National coverage on top of that.
110:
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (6th nomination)
105:
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)
100:
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (4th nomination)
95:
Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (2nd nomination)
495:
Knowledge. I hope that you are successful where I was not.
689:
and shortname irrespective of the decision in this AfD.
1060:
1055:
891:
828:
154:
150:
146:
218:
638:
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions
598:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
350:To add: Looking closer at the sources, there is a
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1152:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1117:and Beyond Party, which I'm not familiar with).
636:Note: This discussion has been included in the
616:Note: This discussion has been included in the
596:Note: This discussion has been included in the
618:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
232:
8:
374:There's no such thing as inherent notability
90:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK)
1114:Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
990:Registration of Political Parties Act 1998
635:
615:
595:
52:. Notability is still marginal as before.
827:Having gone back to that AfD, I've found
87:
1061:got rid of the most egregious section
7:
1077:Respectfully disagree. Do you think
533:, and supporter of the Center-left
85:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
416:, and whilst notability is
1169:
1142:Please do not modify it.
1127:19:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
1109:18:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
1091:10:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
1073:08:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
1045:08:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
1024:20:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
1005:18:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
977:20:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
933:20:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
919:20:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
904:19:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
886:18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
871:19:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
845:17:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
806:03:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
788:20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
770:20:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
738:16:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
717:10:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
699:07:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
681:05:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
650:23:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
630:23:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
610:23:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
583:20:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
569:07:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
551:21:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
525:21:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
505:20:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
483:20:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
453:21:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
430:21:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
400:20:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
386:20:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
368:20:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
344:20:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
325:20:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
303:20:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
285:20:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
267:20:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
257:for lack of notability.
73:04:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1014:dismissed out of hand.
573:No worries, it's fine.
1079:Above and Beyond Party
121:Libertarian Party (UK)
84:AfDs for this article:
79:Libertarian Party (UK)
535:New Democratic party
414:continued coverage
242:Subject fails the
652:
632:
612:
1160:
766:
760:
678:
237:
236:
222:
174:
162:
144:
69:
64:
59:
34:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1150:deletion review
1089:
792:Not lower than
764:
758:
674:
642:The Mighty Glen
622:The Mighty Glen
602:The Mighty Glen
567:
523:
503:
352:Daily Telegraph
179:
170:
135:
119:
116:
114:
82:
67:
62:
57:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1166:
1164:
1155:
1154:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1085:
1075:
1048:
1047:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1008:
1007:
982:
981:
980:
979:
962:
961:
960:
959:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
773:
772:
743:
742:
741:
740:
720:
719:
701:
683:
665:search. Fails
654:
653:
633:
613:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
563:
519:
507:
499:
488:
487:
486:
485:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
347:
346:
328:
327:
308:
307:
306:
305:
288:
287:
240:
239:
176:
115:
113:
112:
107:
102:
97:
92:
86:
83:
81:
76:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1165:
1153:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1137:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1115:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1057:
1056:linked before
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1006:
1003:
1002:
998:
997:
991:
987:
984:
983:
978:
974:
970:
966:
965:
964:
963:
956:
955:
954:
953:
934:
930:
926:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
907:
906:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
888:
887:
883:
879:
874:
873:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
851:WP:NOTROUTINE
848:
847:
846:
842:
838:
834:
833:Spinningspark
830:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
809:
808:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
790:
789:
785:
781:
777:
776:
775:
774:
771:
767:
761:
755:
751:
748:
745:
744:
739:
735:
731:
727:
724:
723:
722:
721:
718:
714:
710:
705:
702:
700:
696:
692:
687:
684:
682:
679:
677:
672:
671:SportingFlyer
668:
664:
659:
656:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
634:
631:
627:
623:
619:
614:
611:
607:
603:
599:
594:
593:
584:
580:
576:
572:
571:
570:
566:
562:
558:
557:User:Emass100
554:
553:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
514:
513:
512:User:Emass100
510:Question for
508:
506:
502:
498:
493:
490:
489:
484:
480:
476:
471:
468:
467:
466:
465:
454:
450:
446:
441:
437:
433:
432:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:not temporary
415:
411:
407:
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
389:
388:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
348:
345:
341:
337:
333:
330:
329:
326:
322:
318:
313:
310:
309:
304:
300:
296:
292:
291:
290:
289:
286:
282:
278:
274:
271:
270:
269:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
247:
245:
235:
231:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
185:
182:
181:Find sources:
177:
173:
169:
166:
160:
156:
152:
148:
143:
139:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
117:
111:
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
80:
77:
75:
74:
70:
65:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1141:
1139:
1096:
1032:
1000:
995:
985:
754:power~enwiki
746:
703:
685:
673:
657:
509:
491:
469:
331:
311:
272:
248:
241:
229:
223:
215:
208:
202:
196:
190:
180:
167:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
726:Maswimelleu
709:Maswimelleu
691:Maswimelleu
332:Speedy Keep
273:Suggestion:
206:free images
892:this !vote
855:WP:ROUTINE
829:this !vote
436:Jon Ossoff
277:JDuggan101
1146:talk page
704:Weak Keep
663:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
1148:or in a
1119:Ralbegen
1101:Emass100
1065:Ralbegen
1037:Emeraude
1016:Emass100
996:Spinning
969:Ralbegen
925:Emass100
911:Ralbegen
896:Emass100
878:Ralbegen
863:Emass100
837:Ralbegen
798:Emass100
780:Ralbegen
730:Ralbegen
575:Emass100
543:Emass100
531:canadian
475:Emass100
445:Emass100
422:Ralbegen
392:Emass100
378:Ralbegen
360:Emass100
336:Emass100
317:Ralbegen
295:Ralbegen
259:Ralbegen
165:View log
39:or in a
1083:doktorb
686:Comment
561:doktorb
555:Thanks
517:doktorb
497:doktorb
470:Comment
312:Comment
212:WP refs
200:scholar
138:protect
133:history
54:King of
986:Delete
794:WP:GNG
667:WP:GNG
658:Delete
539:WP:GNG
492:Delete
440:WP:GNG
410:WP:GNG
356:WP:GNG
244:WP:GNG
184:Google
142:delete
1087:words
1001:Spark
831:from
565:words
521:words
501:words
227:JSTOR
188:books
172:Stats
159:views
151:watch
147:links
16:<
1123:talk
1105:talk
1069:talk
1041:talk
1033:Keep
1020:talk
973:talk
929:talk
915:talk
900:talk
882:talk
867:talk
859:WP:N
849:See
841:talk
802:talk
784:talk
747:Keep
734:talk
713:talk
695:talk
676:talk
646:talk
626:talk
606:talk
579:talk
547:talk
479:talk
449:talk
426:talk
406:here
396:talk
382:talk
364:talk
340:talk
321:talk
299:talk
281:talk
263:talk
255:here
253:and
251:here
220:FENS
194:news
155:logs
129:talk
125:edit
1097:and
234:TWL
163:– (
1125:)
1107:)
1071:)
1043:)
1022:)
975:)
931:)
917:)
902:)
884:)
869:)
861:.
843:)
804:)
786:)
768:)
762:,
736:)
715:)
697:)
648:)
640:.
628:)
620:.
608:)
600:.
581:)
549:)
481:)
451:)
428:)
398:)
384:)
366:)
342:)
323:)
301:)
283:)
265:)
214:)
157:|
153:|
149:|
145:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
71:♠
1121:(
1103:(
1067:(
1039:(
1018:(
971:(
927:(
913:(
898:(
880:(
865:(
839:(
800:(
782:(
765:ν
759:π
756:(
732:(
711:(
693:(
644:(
624:(
604:(
577:(
545:(
477:(
447:(
424:(
394:(
380:(
362:(
338:(
319:(
297:(
279:(
261:(
238:)
230:·
224:·
216:·
209:·
203:·
197:·
191:·
186:(
178:(
175:)
168:·
161:)
123:(
68:♣
63:♦
58:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.