Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian Party (UK)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Other than a failed nomination in the Norwich North by-election, 2009, this party has not had any notable success by any stretch of our definitions on Wiki, or by generally considered definitions, since its formation. The link on the page to a councillor is, in fact, a list of nominations, not elected councillors. There is no sign of this party being 'active' in the broadest sense. It fails the spirit, if not the letter, of our politician and politics notability rules. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional Points 

As can be seen by the discussion below, I have outed a "keep" supporter as someone unwilling to accept that this party is not notable enough for inclusion here. The person involved has not accepted that this party fails notability guidelines, insofar as they exist for political parties. Libertarian Party candidates have not once been elected to Westminster, Brussels, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay or any local council. They have not stood for London Mayor. There are not behind any significant campaigns or demonstrations. This all adds up to a group which is not notable enough for Wikipedia. The discussion below can be seen in full. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Further Points User North8000 seems determined to keep this article. Let us be very clear - I did nominate this article for deletion before. And since then - nothing. The party has had no MPs, no MEPs, nothing to determine notability. Wikipedia has a policy on notability - and this party does not meet it. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Clearly is wp:notable, and the reasons given in the nomination are faulty (they list non-existent criteria). So there is nothing to even address because no valid reason for deletion is even asserted. On the nominator's user page they identify themselves as being in the UK and "card carrying member" of an opposing party.  I will expand this comment if desired or necessary, but this appears to be a wp:snow nomination.    North8000 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This nomination looks like an attempt to censor opposition. The article is notable, even in its currently developing state. Abel (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to North8000 Censor opposition is a invalid claim, and you know it. This micro-party, which has stood only one candidate that I can see and has not organised any campaign on-line worth national/notable attention, is no threat to me or the party I support. In basic questions of notability, which is a valid concern and is writ deep within Wikipedia's founding principles, this micro-party fails. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In your first sentence you are mixing up who said what, please recheck the actual posts. In the rest of your post you are basically trying to invent and apply your own deletion criteria. I don't know how to answer that except to say the obvious....that isn't how it works. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no place on Wikipedia for people, places or organisations which fail Notability. This party fails what criteria we have. I remember pointing out many moons ago that Idle Toad exists here for all the reasons Libertarian Party should not. One has elected councillors and will remain notable for that reason if/when those councillors lose/retire. LPUK have nothing like that level of notability. What we have is an on-line protest group with no achievements. I would like to see the membership figures to further my case against this article doktorb wordsdeeds 13:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are linking and implying things about wp:notability, but your given reasons for deletion are not in wp:notability. North8000 talk) 15:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried, and sadly failed, to draw up a political parties notability rule set. This would have solved the problem we have on Wiki of housing political parties which are not notable enough. Being a political party is not (of itself) a guide of notability. If guidelines don't exist, we need to set them. Ignore all rules, another watchword around here, is relevant in this case. Wikipedia expects organisations to be notable - by any measure, LPUK is not. No election results recently, one terrible result three years ago and no known candidates for forthcoming elections. Not notable - easy as. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To sum it up, my comments are based on applying Wikipedia notability criteria. You are saying that Wikipedia should have additional criteria (that it doesn't currently have) which would cause this article to get deleted. And you are mentioning or invoking wp:iar, possibly to say that it should be deleted on a wp:iar basis.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To sum it up, you have it totally wrong. This party is not notable - it is not represented in Westminster, Brussels, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay or any local council. It has no notable leadership figure. It has no notable campaign. In short - it is not notable. Measured by existing notability rules, it fails. Its article should be deleted.
 * This conversation isn't going anywhere. You keep making responses that don't even relate to my posts, so there is no real conversation going on here. I'm signing off. North8000 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

doktorb wordsdeeds 16:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: 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. - Jorgath (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The are both small articles and combining them might be good. But IMHO that should not be mandated; this subject meets wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Query: Do you agree, then, that if consensus is established for this article's deletion, this alternative should be used instead? - Jorgath (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I have no stake in this article, just want to see the correct result from the AFD, which I think should be keep. Doubly so on the principle of it, because to me it looks like a faulty and POV nomination. But, that said, I think a merge is at least an OK move and possibly the best move either way. North8000 (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note / info This is the 2nd nomination for deletion by the same person. The first is at Articles_for_deletion/Libertarian_Party_(UK). North8000 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Searching Google News Archive] found 4 or 5 more stories mentioning them. But obviously someone needs to beef up the article. As for notability, I think I could find a lot more articles far less notable if cleaning up notability is such a big interest of any individual editor. CarolMooreDC 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments:
 * 1. The fact that there are other articles which are less notable than this one does not mean that this one is notable, merely that there's a lot of cleanup to do (as there always is).
 * 2. 4 or 5 stories does not necessarily notability make. Are those stories reliable sources, and would adding their information demonstrate that this article is notable?
 * With regards to the second, I'm open to changing my mind if the answer really is yes. - Jorgath (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On the first point, I think that they meant that it exceeds the commonly accepted threshold. On the latter, the coverage itself would determine/establish notability, not a case made in the article using the coverage.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Also found coverage in reliable sources in Google. What's next? Conservative Party (UK)? I don't think so!!! BOOYAH!!! – Lionel (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply Of course not. Why? Because the Conservative Party is beyond notable - it is the very definition of a notable organisation, everything the Libertarian Party is not. If you have found coverage, prove it. I would not contemplate deleting a notable organisation's article. It is clear to me that this micro-party is not notable at all. I do not believe the votes in this process are a true reflection of the wider community. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment comparing it with several other minor parties listed at List of political parties in the United Kingdom this article is not atypical of the genre. See, for example, Wessex Regionalist Party, Borders Party, Independent Working Class Association and The Common Good (political party).  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment You make a very good point. I tried (you can follow the /pp link from my user page) to formulate a notability guide for political parties. It didn't go anywhere and by and large we still don't have one today. The parties you mention could very well go through a deletion process. There is a good reason why, for example, the Monster Raving Loony Party has an article - they are an integral part of British political history with notable individuals involved in their leadership and campaigns. There is an issue with the minor parties you mention - some of them would not measure up to the most basic checklist of notability. I would like to try again to formulate a political parties notability policy. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply Thanks, I vaguely remember this from before. For what its worth my view is that it would be better to sort out the notability guide and then (if that's the result) do a mass clearout, rather than picking off parties one by one.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply The thing is, I think we can help doktorb in creating that notability guide in the process of AfDs. By doing a few, or maybe by reviewing old ones, criteria can be established (or at least guided) by use of precedent. - Jorgath (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If User:Jorgath
 * Has User:Doktorbuk tried to get rid of any of those other minor parties since his first, June 2008 attempt to delete this article? Why not try to formulate your policy using a couple AfDs of parties with different ideologies? Otherwise, one tends to think he is singling out one party for POV reasons. (Hmmm, why does this bring to mind the Brit leftie organizer who told me in 2000 "whenever they try to cut the dole we have a riot?)   Anyway, I'm an inclusionist on organizations in general that people are likely to actually search here for, and if there are a few WP:RS, that's notability enough for me. CarolMooreDC 17:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do see where you're coming from, and I understand. I disagree that he is singling out this party for POV reasons, simply because I'm operating on WP:AGF. I think we're trying to draw the same line in slightly different places, and this party falls on the side of not meriting its own article. Merging to give it its own section (a long section, even!) in a more general article seems more proper to me, although we must include this title as a redirect targeted to that subsection, which would solve your "people searching for it" issue. If they ever win anything in a national election we can always un-merge. - Jorgath (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The nominator has nominated this article twice.   On their user page the nominator does declare that they live in the UK and that they are a "card-carrying-member" of an opposing party.  Such disclosure is very principled and laudable.  Despite their best efforts it may be hard to resist being influenced by that.  North8000 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you mean I have to admit I've been a member of the LP USA for 32 years? I've always been a gadfly vs. the partyarchs and apparatchiks, of course, as I am everywhere. But I also know how evil some people from other political viewpoints think libertarians are and that some think we must be purged from the planet. Sigh... CarolMooreDC 02:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * North8000, you are obsessed by my party membership. It is not relevant here. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not following this confusing conversation.  I mentioned it as one of several factors (another being characterizing the party rather than dealing in wp:gng criteria) that raise concerns about objectivity.  But if any of it is of concern to anybody, I hereby withdraw any mention of any editor's affiliation. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong POVs can always be brought up on a talk or process page. COI accusations - like is a person and officer with an organization or an elected official running on a certain party - should be first brought up at user talk pages. (Former elected official? Mea culpa, but only locally way back in 2001.) But I'm sure everyone knows that and is practicing due diligence. :-) CarolMooreDC 16:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep the party has taken part in national elections as well as local elections throughout the United Kingdom and therefore is notable. Just because they have only one elected district councillor and the article is not fully developed does not mean that the subject is not notable. There is no need to nominate the article for deletion again. veganfishcake (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have reviewed this article in depth. It does not meet WP:GNG in its own right. In accordance with WP:ORG, we should therefore consider their primary criteria next. Extrapolating from the examples given of trivial coverage, the sources for it participating in the 2010 election are certainly verifiable, but they're borderline trivial. The audience prong is met, but the independent sources don't seem to give non-trivial coverage to the party. The last place to consult seems to be WP:NGO, and while the scope of the party's activities are national in size, the activities of the party on the national scale are only supported by a single source (the other source talks about the local election they won), and to be a special exception to WP:GNG, it needs to meet both of WP:NGO's criteria. - Jorgath (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be "proving a point" to got to Category:United_Kingdom_political_party_stubs and nominate a couple more to further elucidate what the policy should be?? Since I know nothing about them, I'd be going straight on prima facie wikipedia rules. For example, Free Trader (no refs at all); Red Front (UK) (no refs at all); Red Star (UK) (non WP:RS refs at all); Reigate and Banstead Residents Association (1 BBC election reporting ref); Republican Labour Party (no refs at all); Independent Green Voice (1 electoral ref, on WP:RS mention in passing). Or maybe Libertarian Party (UK) should revert to stub status too?
 * Of course, then there also is WP:Ignore all rules which I do only occasionally, and mostly in AfDs, being an inclusionist. CarolMooreDC 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A political party that runs candidates in national elections is notable. We have even kept many that never reach that stage, if they have an effective presence. What we don't keep are the ones where we cannot document beyond mere existence.  Here, and for religious organizations, I think we should be especially inclusive, because of the difficulty in trying to define what represents notability importance in these areas, and the ample scope that arguing over that would give to prejudice & personal commitment-- in both directions. The prima facia Wikipedia rule is that we keep what we have consensus to keep,; it's the only definition of notability  that matches our reality.   DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 23 February 2012 (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.