Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderates (Liberal Party of 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Moderates (Liberal Party of Australia)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The moderate faction of the Liberal Party is a term that is used by the media. Whether a person is a member of a faction is speculation and this speculation can lead to misinformation appearing in this Wikipedia Article. It is for the reasons mentioned thereof that I believe that this article can be categorised as "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes" and "any other content not suitable for an encyclopaedia" GA Melbourne (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 21.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 07:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep If reliable sources consistently point out the faction exists (and consistently point out the same set of members), it probably exists. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While these sources are reliable, such articles all seem to be gossip columns and aren't reporting fact. In my opinion, the only facts these articles report are personal differences between MPs which can be noted on each respective MP's wiki article. GA Melbourne (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is one half of the Australian version of Wets and dries, and has been reported in more than enough articles to be notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, even a cursory glance at any form of Australian political coverage will reveal legions of coverage around the conflicts between the Moderate and Right-wing factions of the Liberal Party. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources, including RS Australian Financial Review, Sydney Morning Herald, The Conversation, ABC News, and SBS News frequently cover these factions, contrary to the nom, these are not gossipy columns but cover them directly and in detail, especially 1, 2, 3. The terminology is also covered in The Economist, with one paragraph discussing The Liberals’ future is especially uncertain. The party lost some of its safest seats, and its moderate politicians. Some warn that a populist turn is now likely, see here, though it might not be SIGCOV, and the moderate terminology per the article is also used by a former Prime Minister. This IMO does not violate WP:NOTNEWS and passes WP:GNG. VickKiang 22:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I've got an element of sympathy with the nomination here because officially there are no factions in the Liberal Party of Australia. "Because the Liberal party lacks formal factions, scholars have disagreed about the particular tendencies that can be found within its ranks." Of course this doesn't mean there are not factions and in practice there are clear ideological divisions within the party and MPs do group together on issues (and around leadership change). But this is in stark contrast to the Australian Labor Party which institutionalises factional politics. Unlike the Labor Party, where there are clear, named factions (Unity, Socialist Left etc), there are no named factions in the Liberal Party - so this article, as it currently stands, is misleading to that extent. That said, there are clearly sources going back decades which discuss factions in the Party.     The difficulty is that the terms vary. Does this article need improvement? Yes. Does it need renaming? Possibly.  Does it need better sourcing? Yes. But none of those answers indicate a need for deletion.


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per above Andre🚐 16:58, 25 September 2022 (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.