Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:42, 29 November 2014

Libertarian Party (UK)

• Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK)
• Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (6th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (United Kingdom)
• Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party UK

Libertarian Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This party are not notable or important enough. They have not stood in any of the 22 by-elections in the 2010-2015 Parliament, they have no proof of credible third party coverage, they do not have any evidence of notable campaigning in recent months, or indeed recent years. They have "0"s down the entire list of elected positions on the right hand side. With no evidence of recent activity, with no notable personalities involved, with no by-election candidates, with no elected officials, they are nowhere near important or credible enough for a Misplaced Pages article. doktorb _words 16:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. This is the fifth time this has been nominated (and at least the third time by the present nominator!). Sure, the infobox looks silly with the 0s and that's easily solved by deleting the infobox which, on most articles about political parties, serves no useful purpose anyway. And if lack of recent activity is a basis, let's delete Whigs. Emeraude (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

A rather silly post User:Emeraude. The Whigs are self evidently notable. Can you say the same about LUK? doktorb _words 19:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you would prefer to discuss the Wessex Regionalist Party, The Common Good (political party), or the Popular Alliance (UK)? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I will User:Jonathan A Jones, I want to try and clear up such articles as best as I can. doktorb _words 09:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I ask only because we discussed this very point at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (2nd nomination) back in February 2012, and nothing seems to have been done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 18:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 19:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. The refs aren't up to much and the party is irrelevant, it has such a small amount of coverage more or less anyone could get a party to this level of notability. I can't understand why this has survived 4 AFDs - but I'm sure it will keep coming up for deletion until it does get deleted. Szzuk (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  Add. Now it makes sense, this has already been deleted twice - it had a slightly different name. Szzuk (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Bit of a mess this one, finding old AfDs all over the place. As well as the ones linked above, there's Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party UK and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (United Kingdom), which both resulted in delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• • It's really quite simple. This is a minor, even a very minor party and it has no chance of attaining power at this stage. (Rather like UKIP at one time!) But that's not the point. It is a registered party and has contested both local and national elections. One of its candidates was elected to a parish council for a while. It does have news coverage, as do all parties that contest elections. But, and here's the key issue, when it's deleted and some person in the future comes across Libertarian Party in print (or even in a Misplaced Pages article on a constituency's election - see, for example, Devizes) there is no way that Misplaced Pages will allow that person to know anything about the party. Misplaced Pages will ensure they remain in ignorance! This is a digital encyclopaedia - there is no shortage of paper, there is plenty of room. The great thing about Misplaced Pages is that it can cover things that don't get any detail anywhere else without the constraints of space. Emeraude (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    • But there is so little third party coverage of them, Wiki could become the main point of reference point, and that's against policy. Wiki has limits on content and with good reason. It is not an indiscriminate collection of content doktorb _words 11:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete I previously nominated this myself but then found a solitary wp:rs which gave it notability: a Daily Telegraph article explaining why the group wasn't notable & shouldn't have been set up in the 1st place. By a magnificent piece of philosophic irony (see talk page) the article survived & the reference was deleted. I subsequently found the same organization had been previously deleted but reappeared with the same details but 'UK' added. It's time for it to go -and stay gone! Whoops ..should have signed my message! JRPG (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  Add If the article is kept, it should be significantly shortened and its solitary wp:rs -the Telegraph comments on its irrelevance included. JRPG (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep They are a registered and still-active UK political party, so there should be no question of deletion. And that really should be the end of the discussion. Anything more suggests censorship and bias. I think there is something seriously amiss when an article goes to AfD five times. Are there some people who just won't accept keep as the answer (doktorb certainly doesn't), or is there a sustained bias at work against having articles about minor political parties? I note a number of other ongoing AfD articles proposing deleting articles on other political parties. We are going down a dangerous route if for political parties we require notability through sustained positive reporting in established press. Control of media is essential for any political party in power or cartel of parties that monopolize power by exchanging it every few years. This results in the activities of minor parties being not reported in the media, and if they are mentioned at all there will be consistent bias against them and belittling (and often outright hatred) of their aims and supporters (the cited Telegraph example is such an article). That is why their mere existence as political parties should be enough to ensure they can have a Misplaced Pages entry. This should be especially true if the political philosophy of the party is far more significant than the number of their supporters or voters would suggest. The question of what is or is not libertarianism is a very active topic in Britain. And Britain's "first past the post" system ensures minor parties almost never gain seats anywhere, so attempting to gain seats is not seen as a priority or even a necessary function of a minor political party. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response User:Tiptoethrutheminefield, although you have been rather scatter gun in your content. I am not biased against this particular party, and I don't consider it relevant that the topic of libertarianism is an active dinner party topic or not. This party barely made any impact, at all, whatsoever, in the political culture of England, let alone the UK, in the brief time of its existence. It had one Westminster by-election failure, to my knowledge, and existed largely as an on-line fad. There is nothing to indicate any importance or credibility whatsoever, and by most marks, it fails Misplaced Pages policy on notability. That is at the centre of my argument - does it meet Misplaced Pages standards? Answer: No. Your final few sentences about media control and voting systems are utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand. doktorb _words 18:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: Misplaced Pages does not keep an article on the basis of the subject impact alone but on the basis of notability. The fact that the subject of the article is a minor party, may not provide valid criteria for an AfD nomination. However, reliable sourcing is the most important factor for AfD nomination. Wikicology (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

To User talk:Emeraude and User:Wikicology - can you point to which notable achievements this party has had in its existence? The fact they exist is not enough for Misplaced Pages, they have had to *achieve* something. Misplaced Pages is not a repository of each and every organisation ever to have been created. doktorb _words 21:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, they don't have to achieve *anything* other than significant coverage in reliable sources. Which this party has just about managed: it's marginal, perhaps, but it's not trivial and certainly not non-existent. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: It's not the most notable party in the history of the UK, but it's just about over the threshold. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a registered party that has fielded candidates in elections and has been covered. Contrast to Transhumanist Party (at AFD also still i believe), which has not. I have seen too many AFDs about political parties. We need an RFC and/or other approach to setting a clear notability standard for political parties. My view is that this Libertarian Party UK article meets the standard. --doncram 05:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak keep - msrginal, s said above, but gets over notability line. Metamagician3000 (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates