Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal Democrats (Zimbabwe)


 * 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. The IP opinions are not taken into account because they do not address the problems based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines mentioned in the nomination.  Sandstein  11:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats (Zimbabwe)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a substantially promotional article about a new political party, without evidence of notability. Of the references, one is the party's own web site, one barely mentions the party in passing, and the others don't mention it at all. Searches for information about the party also fail to find any significant coverage in independent sources. (Note: If you wish to check for sources, be careful to make sure that you are actually getting sources about the Liberal Democrats of Zimbabwe: I found the vast majority of hits for search terms such as "Liberal Democrats" Zimbabwe were pages which mentioned the British Liberal Democrats and also mentioned Zimbabwe, but did not mention the Liberal Democrat party of Zimbabwe.) A PROD was removed by the creator of the article, with an edit summary which said "This is a political party in existence in Zimbabwe like all other political parties and it's activities prove existence of it", but that is missing the point, as the reason for proposing deletion was not that the existence of the party was in question, but because of a lack of evidence that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Hie, why do you wantdelete this page Liberaldemocrats because is from a country with political despotism and no freedom of expression. The party website has an article from a Zimbabwean newspaper, interview on Talk 702 South Africa and we heard them speak on Radio Islam in an interview in Johannesburg. They engage Zimbabwe and build our country. Why u want to suppress them. Mugabe oppress our country and you also want to oopress it by killing opposition ;like Mugabe does. You might not care but we care when we see hope. I was follow them on twitter and they give me their website and did not knopw they are party but was always with them on twitter and I go to their website and see on their media page all these interviews about Zimbabwe. Is that not serving Zimbabwe. They are very popular on twitter and care about Zimbabwe and no one in Zimbabwe sources can talk about them because in our country you must buy media. This is wrong. I find this wiki thing when I was searching for them when I wanted ytheir website but not essy to find because there isd more about Lib Dems. Africa must suffer neh. This is racist or you also work for Mugabe and you are CIO, this is good party and is busy abouit Zimbabwe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.0.77 (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, basically per nom. Author seems to argue inherent notability due to being a political party (invalidly), or doesn't understand  notability policy. Having had a quick search, it's possible (but perhaps unlikely) that their notability is being drowned out by the UK lib dems, but since there is no argument for notability in the article or useful references, I'm pretty confident it is not WP:NOTABLE. -crh23 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    22:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

From Tawanda Chikuvise Imi people what is it with you. The party's name is Liberal Democrats and when added to a the List of Political Parties in Zimbabwe it automatically referred to the Liberal Democrats article in UK. We raised this with the authors and that is why the had to put that article. There must be something said about the party otherwise any removal of that article will; refer the party the UK party which will be3 misleading. We think that if you find it not okay because of whatever why don't you guys write an article based on the articles and references given. It is a notable party and is in the active in ZImbabwe has references more than other parties that are listed on the List of Political Parties in ZImbabwe. You would rather have a political party listed which refering to the wrong article? They listed it as Liberal Democrats and had to put LD to try and distinguish and The Zimbabwe was suggested byone of your editors Mr X from what we hear. Why are you giving them grief as if you just want to prove a point. You are behaving as this is your bedroom because the article removes the confusion as well on names. .Comment There is another ref on the Change.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.226.21.33 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Response to Delete. -- It is sad that ref number 3 apart from the official website shows an article about the activities of the Liberal Demmocrats but you guys do not see it. Furthermore they had a petition the AU and SADC through change which unfortunately according to wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, they have been on Talk 702 in South Africa and Radio Islam and all these are on their webpage in the media page, those live interviews. All other parties in the list either have the official website or nothing as reference or one or two, is this not bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.226.21.33 (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as although I may not be entirely familiar with this area, the newly founded aspect and overall questionability is enough. Best deleted and restarted when better, SwisterTwister   talk  01:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 1.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 07:38, 1 April 2016 (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.