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. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)

• Delete:This article lacks wp:notability. I have only been able to find one source capable of conferring notability, ironically a daily telegraph article suggesting the party shouldn't have been set up in the first place -see Talk:Libertarian Party (UK) JRPG (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As far as I can see, the article was deleted as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party UK in January 2011 and reappeared with brackets perhaps by accident in November 2011. As there are now two sources, one kindly found by Morwen, I have no objection. I have also updated the article. JRPG (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 9. Snotbot  t • c »  20:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for various reasons given in the previous AfD. Also, isn't this the 3rd nomination of this article with this spelling? Lukeno94 (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's at least the 4th :) and I think I can remember it by a different article name. The solitary reason for deleting is its lack of notability. I've done what I can to improve it i.e. add the Telegraph reference but it simply fails the wp:gng test.JRPG (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 4th AfD for this subject matter, but the first AfD was for an article with a slightly different name, so procedure-wise it should say that it's the 3rd nomination. Especially as the last one says that it's the 2nd nomination. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This has already closed "Keep" at least twice... Notability is not temporary, etc. I will also once again note my strong personal belief that all political parties of confirmed existence, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to size or ideology, should be auto-kept like we auto-keep secondary schools, towns, villages, rivers, professional athletes, etc. This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have any problems with notability being permanent. I just can't see that it was ever established at any point in the 4 year history or even via the AFD discussions. According to the Telegraph, its only notable for ..being a mistake! Regards JRPG (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Established political parties are generally inherently notable, and this party is well established and has a seat in local government. The article is needed for proper coverage of contemporary British politics.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rangoon. My understanding is that Andrew Withers won an election as a parish councillor but in common with most politicians at this level, he stood as an independent. Had the party won a seat under its own name, that would have been notable. Please don't hesitate to correct if I'm wrong. JRPG (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If correct then the infobox of the article is wrong. Even so I remain firmly of the view that this is a keep. This project is full of tens of thousands of articles on pop culture detritus, I think we can find a place for an established political party. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rangoon, the only election 'victory' known is Andrew Withers and as he stood an independent, that doesn't count, so I also think the infobox is wrong. This was a parish election so I don't even know if it was contested. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe that the nominator may be thinking of a different meaning of notability North8000 (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi North8000. I believe the notability guidelines on political parties are the same as everything else. There are lower criteria for musicians, schools etc. The only party political definition I've seen, Wikipedia:Notability (political parties) is a failed proposal but even had this been adopted this article wouldn't meet the criteria as its never won any election under its own name or had a significant mention in a newspaper. Nor can we just alter the notability criteria. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are basically agreeing with me / reinforcing what I said. My point was that the nominator seemed to be arguing based on prominence and success as a political party rather than wp:gng/wp:notability criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sole requirement was 2 reliable sources. The Telegraph and Politics.co.uk articles have provided that. Nothing I have seen suggests the party will ever win a seat or otherwise achieve "prominence and success." However that is irrelevant. Had the sources not been found, I would have asked for a redefinition of wp:GNG for political parties. Look forward to seeing you around on shipping articles. At least shipwrecks don't keep resurfacing once down :) Regards JRPG (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rangoon11--Neo139 (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Withers won his seat as an independent, which from reading various blogs I gather was unopposed. I think this has been wrongly claimed to be a Libertarian UK victory. If I'm wrong, can anyone cite any election won by the party, or alternately provide a link to criteria for keeping that the party satisfies? JRPG (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If anyone's looking for it, the most recent AFD for this was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party UK, by the way. It was a delete. I don't think there's sources out there to warrant this article. Back in the day I created lots of stubs about very minor UK parties, but I sort of regret that now. Morwen (Talk) 10:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. And the consensus was keep. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad. Still, that one hadn't been linked yet from here. Morwen (Talk) 16:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not checked the top right hand corner of the AfD then? Lukeno94 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the one I mention is an additional one to those. If you're being snarky you'd do well to check your facts first. Morwen (Talk) 18:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Morwen. Looking at the edits, Libertarian Party UK was deleted on 2 January 2011 and I voted for delete. I don't understand the details but Richard BB moved United Kingdom Libertarian Party which appears the same as the one deleted to this article on the grounds the name was wrong. I'll contact Richard to see if he has any input. BTW have you made a vote?JRPG (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally didn't vote. By the way, I've had a poke at the deleted page. It yields another source, this interview on politics.co.uk, which is I should say is definitely 1 of the 2 reliable independent sources needed. Morwen (Talk) 19:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! This really is irony/farce at its best. I have previously added http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alexsingleton/4341751/How_Libertarians_undermine_liberty so those who don't think there should be an article have found the 2 sources needed to meet WP:GNG. I'll leave it at that and thanks to everyone for the contributions. JRPG (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- The party exists; it has contested general elections, though it has always failed to win, except at the NN level of parish councillors. Most parish council elections seem to be unopposed. At times it can be a job to find sufficient candidates. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peterkingiron. Please be assured, if I really thought the party had won a seat, or meet WP:GNG in any way I would not have started this AFD. When I checked the facts, I found Withers had stood unopposed as an independent so I updated the article and provided a reference. The box either wrongly refers to Withers or there is an unreported victory -which seems a little unlikely. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Party may be small but it exists and is registered with Electoral Commission. It is not just a front for some commercial and so as a valid political party it should be recognised.--Robnock (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.