Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal Democratic Party (Australia)


 * 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. Reliable secondary sources have since been added to the article. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Liberal Democratic Party (Australia)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There are no secondary sources for this article. It is a minor Australian party that has received no media or academic coverage. The sources used in the article are either from the party's website or the Australian Electoral Commission. The sole news story is actually about the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan. The only scholarly reference is one mention that they have a website. TFD (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete . The only third-party references are links to the Australian Electoral Commission website, which are sufficient to confirm that the party exists and that it has run candidates in Australian federal elections, but are not sufficient to confirm that it's notable. Since unsuccessful candidates for national political office are not automatically presumed to be notable unless they have received significant press coverage in their own right (unlike successful candidates for national office, who are automatically presumed to be notable), the same rule should probably apply, mutatis mutandis, to minor political parties. That is, a minor party can be notable if it has received enough media attention to meet the general criteria of WP:N, but an otherwise-non-notable party is not automatically notable merely because it is registered at the national level and has run candidates in national election. Obviously, I'll change my view if someone finds some substantial coverage of the party from national or regional media outlets: but on a quick Google search, I couldn't find any references to the party other than its own website, the AEC, and mirrors of this Wikipedia article. WaltonOne 19:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On reflection, change to weak keep per below. 230,000 votes in a national election (in a country with only 22 million people, not all of whom are eligible voters) is fairly substantial. I'm surprised there aren't more reliable secondary sources available, though: one would think that there should be some local media coverage, at least. WaltonOne 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably should exist but it needs a lot of work OK, that's a bit each way kind of a post, but if it's true, as the unsourced claim says, that it received 200,000 votes at last year's federal election, that's a fair few people who think this party is important. The article reads like a very sloppy advertisement for the party, so needs a lot of attention, and it won't get it from me in the near future. Do we delete because it's a poor article, even if it should exist? HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the claim was very easy to source. StAnselm (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. Thanks for providing that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course not, or half of Wikipedia would disappear! Yes the article needs work, but it most definitely is a Keep. Throughout the world there are political parties that do not achieve office and whose members do not get elected, but that is no reason to say they do not deserve articles in Wikipedia. As pointed out, the party does exist and has even achieved a fair number of votes; its arguments over naming with the Electoral Commission in itself confers notability beyond the mere fact of its existence - how many parties have this in their background? It is a mistake to assess parties on the same notability guidelines that we apply to politicians. Emeraude (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If no sources exist, how do you propose improving the article? TFD (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The AEC would seem to me to be a most valuable source. It certainly confirms existence of the party and numbers of votes gained. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a primary source. You need newspaper articles at least.  TFD (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, no! That is not a primary source. StAnselm (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Primary sources would be those of the party itself and its candidates, and one can find plenty of those. The AEC is, by definition, independent of the party. Anyway, a little determined searching did find this, an article from The Age telling us about funding for parties from the AEC following the last federal election. It tells us that the LDP was one of ten Australian parties to gain funding from taxpayers. As a taxpayer, that's notable to me! Should it be included? HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARY. There have been a lot of discussion of this type of source.  ACT is a primary source for the parties they register and the votes they count.  Newspaper reports of vote counts and ACT decisions are secondary sources.  I have taken it to the OR noticeboard.  TFD (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. 1.81% of the senate vote means it's not just a silly little party, like, I don't know, the Non-Custodial Parents Party. The LDP received almost three times as many votes as the Democrats. StAnselm (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A search of Factiva for '("Liberal Democratic Party" or "Liberty and Democracy Party") and (whelan or McAlary)' gives about 30 results. I have started adding some of these as secondary sources for the article. Reubot (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, standard. Timeshift (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. One of the stronger minor parties outside of parliament. Rebecca (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Five Years 16:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.