Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Libertarian Party


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Progressive Libertarian Party
9/12/2012 Any options to the stagnant, repugnant cesspool that the American political arena has become in the last 25 years or so is far from non-notable. If it's non-notable, it's only because Rebublicrat lackeys do all they can to put a musty lid on a fresh idea. I say "Un Delete" and tell all your friends! .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Delete as non-notable political party. The party 'is' listed on the list of Minor Political Parties on the Florida Div. of Elections site, but no other appreciable notablity. Home page listed in article is invalid, and a second different site listed on the Fla. Div. of Elec. site is inactive Bugturd Talk 03:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The home page listed in the article is valid for me Rory096 03:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. The site in the article has been updated since my first visit.  The page listed points to a section within the personal site of the author of the article, which bolsters my point about the party's non-notability.  Therefore, I upgrade my vote to Strong Delete --Bugturd  Talk 03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What does "non-notability" really mean... Like most small independent third parties, it is, by definition, non-notabile compared to major parties, but otherwise it is a valid and valuable edition to the political landscape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.64.171 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete Non notable. This means not already well known, or not significant in some way.  A not well know scientist who made a breakthrough would still be notable.  This is a judgement call, but there are many prior examples.  See for example WP:NOT and WP:BIo. And this determined in the end by judgement of editors.  Mine is as per Bugturd's. Sorry.Obina 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

By your standard any not descript animal with no real defining charateristics would be deleted as non-notable. However, we list them all as separate things. By its own definition it is notable in that it is a thing different and unusual from others. Your requirement is "well known" which should never be the standard for knowledge. If this was a popularity encyclo, sure, but this is suppose to be the encyclo of all knowledge. keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjposner (talk • contribs)

This is clearly a small - perhaps even miniscule - political party but it is validly registered in the state of Florida and anyone is free to register as a member which to my mind makes it a worthwhile piece of information to include in this encyclopedia. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.3.175 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment Note that one of the three "keeps" is from the article's author, and the other two are from IP users, one of whom has no other contribs aside from this talk page. --Bugturd Talk 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep If they're noteable for the Flordia Elections officials, why not us? If it is kept, could use some cleanup. &mdash;akghetto talk 10:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. All knowledge is notable. -- Marvin147 00:23, 5 February 2006 (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.