Talk:Libertarian Party (UK)

Undid re-direct on the talk page
Until today, the talk page of this article had a redirect to a different article. I removed the redirect. Obviously an article has its own talk page. The edit summary from the addition of the redirect did not match the action taken. They said they were redirecting article #1 to here, but instead actually redirected here to article #3. North8000 (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Article still seriously lacks wp:notability and out of date.
The article doesn't appear to have a single newpaper interview and I find it astonishing that it survived the AFD. That having been said, it may become more notable. Is it possible to provide an update on membership? I presume that Andrew Withers is a parish councillor as otherwise he would have stood for the party. Could someone confirm this with a reference please? JRPG (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree on various points stated or implied in your first two sentences. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi North8000. A range of views is usual -indeed probably beneficial -as long as we all want a better article and stick to the rules -it ensures a neutral point of view. My concern is that although the sources are reliable there is nothing which would confer general notability such as an article about LP:UK in one of the wp:Suggested sources. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. I don't see any npov question here.   My disagreement relates to that it has already been determined to have wp:notability, and that your title is explicitly contrary to that and your second second sentence is implicitly contrary to that, and implicit assertion that a newspaper interview is central to such or something. You have good ideas after that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just stumbled on this article as a new addition to the UK Politics project. Looking at the sources we don't appear to have much to go on. There is a list of candidates that includes mention of an independent candidate standing for election and a notice of the independent candidate's resignation but no reference to the party. The electoral commission are obliged to publish the details of any person or group willing to pay a small fee to be registered as a party. For example, I could pay to register the "Road Wizard wants to buy a Wikipedia page" party and gain the same level of supporting source material. The remaining sources are self published.
 * Are there any other independent sources that mention the party (and not just a candidate who appears to have chosen not to stand under the party label)? Have they stood any candidates under the party label at any election? Road Wizard (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi RW. I'm fairly sure I proposed this for deletion some time ago -because of a lack of independent sources and as far as I can see nothing has changed.  However it did survive 2 AFD's, one quite recent.  In fairness to Andrew Withers in the UK, parish councillors don't wear their party hats at elections, hence my first question on the talk page. I expect North8000 will have a lot more to say.  Regards JRPG (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have expertise in or a strong opinion on the UK Libertarian Party.  My comments were more on Wikipedian areas and on statements that were faulty in areas unrelated to expertise on the the UK  Libertarian party. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've found a Daily Telegraph article How Libertarians undermine liberty which quite ironically supports the AFD case -it says the party will achieve nothing and shouldn't have been set up in the first place! I've spent an hour looking for other reliable sources but found nothing.  The AFD discussion really didn't show anything and unless someone finds anything better or for any reason I'm out of order, I will renominate it in the next few days.  JRPG (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you understand what wp:notability / the main potential AFD reason is.  The article that you found does the opposite of what you said, it bolsters wp:notability.  North8000 (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well at least I found it :) Others can help decide. JRPG (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, nice work! North8000 (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

more possible sources
I've found a "minute manifesto" by Nic Coome, their candidate in Devizes, here, a short article in the Wiltshire Gazette and Herald here which quotes Coome and Withers, in which they are realistic about their chances, and here, a Q&A with Martin Cullip, their candidate for Sutton & Cheam. These are all pretty thin, though. Morwen (Talk) 18:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Morwen. From your politics.co.uk source referencing Stuart Heal, I've found a result for Miles Platting and Newton Heath Ward in which he stood under the party banner. I'll update shortly.  Don't think its quite a wp:GA candidate yet:) JRPG (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail
Is the Daily Mail artical relevant for this political party? Because it should be more about the party, not critical opinions from other people. Thank you. (195.194.74.146 (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC))


 * I'm not sure I know to what you're referring. There's no mention of the Daily Mail anywhere on this article. –  Richard  BB  12:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

On the second paragraph it ststaes this: "A leader in the Daily Telegraph, blamed the founding of the party on "poor advice from friends" predicting it would allow "the crazier aspects of libertarian thinking to come to the fore" whilst achieving nothing.[3]"

So this page should be more about the party, not other people's opinions.

(195.194.74.146 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC))


 * Oh, you meant the Telepgraph, not the Mail.
 * Yes, I think I agree with you. Important criticisms are fine, but a single opinion from a newspaper seems awfully irrelevant. We don't need to list every mention in a news paper if it's not significant. I have now removed it. –  Richard  BB  14:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not spotting this earlier Richard. The article has been the subject of several AFD discussions, and has been deleted and resurrected under a different name at least once. I withdrew my deletion recomendation last time when I found a solitary article -the Telegraph article -refered to which you have now removed!  This remains the only suggested source that can add notability and should be included -if the article is really worth keeping at all. JRPG (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this is an interesting point. I'm fairly certain that the article doesn't need the Telegraph reference -- but without it, the article no longer seems notable. Although I stand by the decision to remove the citation, I would fully understand if someone now decided to nominate the article for deletion again. –  Richard  BB  09:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems more like a philosophy debate ..is an article notable when its only notable reference is an article saying it'll never be notable? I would have preferred to see it deleted but don't think a third debate instigated by me would win any friends. Can you nominate it as otherwise I believe the Telegraph article should go back in -as per wp:crit?  Regards JRPG (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, it is indeed rather philosophical! However, even though I'm not opposed to this article being deleted, I'm not really for it, either. I won't nominate it for deletion (but, likewise, I won't vote keep if someone else does). I think it could be worth making the nomination if you feel that it ought to be deleted; I doubt anyone's going to hold a Wikigrudge against you! –  Richard  BB  14:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

More sources
Gavin Webb, Stoke-on-Trent city councillor and Burton parliamentary candidate, leaves Liberal Democrats, joins Libertarian Party

Gavin Webb stood in the 2011 Uttoxeter town council by-election: http://ukip-vs-eukip.com/2011/08/09/0623-uttoxeter-town-council-by-election-result/

Gregg Beaman contesting the 2010 Oldham by-election for the Libertarian Party

Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

2017 General Election

 * They have 4 candidates in this year's general election, if that is worth mentioning: https://libertarianpartyuk.com/lpuk-enters-ge2017-with-4-candidates/ Beeurd (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think so. When it comes to political parties, most information regarding what they stand for, where they are standing and amount of candidates is significant information. Even if its only a few candidates, it is still fairly significant for a party this small and fairly new. Helper201 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good thoughts.  North8000  (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With the greatest respect, simply spending £500 on an inevitably lost deposit is not going to increase the party's notability. If you can find a WP:Suggested sources item then please add it JRPG (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NNC notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article: these decisions should be made on the basis of content policies such as WP:DUE. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what the debate is here. Regarding any policy constraints on inclusion, the one most likely to need a look is wp:ver and I think that for simply covering that the party is fielding them as candidates an (authoritative) primary source is probably OK. Regarding general good article building, this certainly seems like suitable content. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not an issue. It needs one sentence ("The party has/had four candidates inthe 2017 general election") with appropriate source(s), as with any other minor party. If no one beats me to it, I'll have a go when I get a chance to peruse nominations for the election. Emeraude (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which I have now done. Emeraude (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to stating the number of candidates but with respect to Emeraude adding names and constituencies is wp:undue. As you probably know, I have previously proposed deletion of the article on notability grounds -it reappeared under a new name after being deleted in 2008 - so we're likely to peacefully disagree. There were 3,971 Candidates standing in the United Kingdom general election, 2015 -a number far exceeding the combined votes of all Libertarian Party (UK) candidates. Regards JRPG (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Compromise: I've removed the candidaes' names (and for previous general election), but constituencies are useful links for readers who want to see detail of results. Emeraude (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Brilliant -I don't expect to have disagreements with you Emeraude. Regards JRPG (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome JRPG. Emeraude (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Changed description and Ideology to Right-libertarian
I changed the Ideology to Right-libertarianism, to distinguish the party’s ideology from Left-libertarianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSmoe2828 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * U|JoeSmoe2828, your claim should be supported by a citation from a reliable source and not be original research. Helper201 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Emeraude
Thank you for your assistance correcting 2A00:23EE:1310:C593:821A:58EE:D82B:346 (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)