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) DannyS712 (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty League (Historic) (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)

Article does not meet notability requirements. A one time newspaper ad placed by a few celebrities in 1920 does not a "political organization" make. The Liberty League was disbanded less than a year later and accomplished no significant acts or deeds, political or otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSangChi (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A misconceived nomination. The question is whether the organisation was noticed by multiple independent sources, and got coverage, which I'm sure it did, not whether it accomplished anything significant.Rathfelder (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Rathfelder. The book sources cited in the article, along with others found by searches such as this, demonstrate notability. The fact that this organisation only lasted a short time before being absorbed into National Propaganda doesn't stop it from being notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject was of short duration but it is notable (e.g. extensive write up in The British Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia) and still invoked today (e.g. by the Foundation for Economic Education in articles such as this). The article clearly offers encyclopaedic value. -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons given above. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2019 (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.