Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (6th nomination)

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 no consensus. Notability is still marginal as before. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party (UK)

AfDs for this article:
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)

Subject fails the WP:GNG. No inline sources represent significant coverage in reliable sources, and I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources.

This article has been deleted before, twice, under different names, here and here for lack of notability. Ralbegen (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion: Rather than delete outright, I suggest that the information about this party be merged and redirected into the Libertarianism in the United Kingdom article as its own subsection.JDuggan101 (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems sensible to me — though there's precious little material in this article other than from primary sources. Ralbegen (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I missed the subsequent four AfD discussions with Keep results, which was quite an embarrassing oversight... I've read through those discussions now, but I have been unable to find any compelling reasons that the subject meets notability criteria. There appear to have been lots of arguments presented that the party's article should exist by virtue of the party being active and standing candidates in national elections. Those do not seem to me like adequate arguments for inclusion. Ralbegen (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Added a third party source. This party is notable because it is active and runs candidates in elections. This should make it so we presume notability outright. Emass100 (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To add: Looking closer at the sources, there is a Daily Telegraph RS linked in the article. This, on top of the party actually running in elections, makes the article meet WP:GNG. I change my !vote to Speedy Keep: after 6 nominations, we shouldn't even be discussing this anymore. Emass100 (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being active and running candidates in elections doesn't confer notability in any way that's consistent with Wikipedia policies or guidelines. There's no such thing as inherent notability. It's usually conferred by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. One article in the Telegraph does not meet the general notability guideline, which requires multiple reliable sources. Ralbegen (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a source from Politics.co.uk., so it does have multiple Reliable Sources. Emass100 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph article is a now-deleted blog post that can be read here. The politics.co.uk interview constitutes, to at least some extent, routine election coverage. I don't think that these two sources mean that the article meets the WP:GNG. "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Both articles are from the late 2000's — the party hasn't received continued coverage, and whilst notability is not temporary, failure to receive more than trivial coverage subsequent to the party's first year of existence does not count in its favour with regard to its lasting notability. Ralbegen (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"routine election converage" is an argument used to dismiss individual non-elected candidates in elections, which aren't notable unless they are elected. Individual candidates need to show outstanding coverage to be considered notable, like Jon Ossoff. For political parties, this is different, they only need to show they meet WP:GNG as an organisation. The Libertarian Party UK meets this by virtue of their multiple RS and their participation in elections. Also: the Libertarian Party UK did receive multiple third party coverage subsequently. Emass100 (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Precedent is in favour of Keep. A nomination for deletion spree of minor UK parties in december of 2014 lead to all of them haveng Keep results except 1, which was a recreation of an article already deleted with nothing but self-published sources. This article is better sourced than many of these articles, and this one got National coverage on top of that. Emass100 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the editor who tried time and time again to delete this article, can I try one last time. They have never satisfied notability guidelines. No media coverage, no election success, no notable people involved. I argued over each and every deletion attempt that they were not notable enough for Wikipedia. I hope that you are successful where I was not. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for User:Emass100 . Do you have any direct connection with the Libertarian Party which you might need to disclose? doktorb wordsdeeds 21:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. I'm not even british, nor a libertarian. You can see on my userpage that I am a canadian, and supporter of the Center-left New Democratic party. I also never made any edits on any page regarding libertarianism. I truly believe that this article meets WP:GNG, which is the consensus position of the 5 previous Afds for this article. Emass100 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks User:Emass100. I apologise if my question was a touch pointed or rude, it was not intended to be, and I could have asked you away from this page rather than draw attention to it here. Thanks for your response :) doktorb wordsdeeds 07:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries, it's fine. Emass100 (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how did this survive so many prior AfDs? The article is source-bombed, but they're all primary sources to election results or the party's own website, deadlinks, or a couple non-trivial articles! I had difficulty finding any independent sources during a WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:GNG pretty easily. I have never seen a guideline showing presumptive notability for a registered political party, either. SportingFlyer talk 05:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support turning any salvageable content from the article into a section of another page, rather than deleting it outright. Since they stand in by-elections, I would appreciate somewhere to link to (even if it is just an article on Libertarianism generally). On that note, keep the party colour and shortname irrespective of the decision in this AfD. Maswimelleu (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I've reformatted the article and cut out some of the truly non-notable content, as well as re-using some sources and introducing a few more. There are pretty few secondary sources on the party, but I wouldn't describe it as an instant WP:GNG fail. Having trawled for more I'm willing to side with keep, although not with any amount of conviction. There is direct and in-depth mention of them across a number of secondary sources, but we ought to be cautious about embellishing the article with too much. It quickly turns into a promotional piece for their leaders and candidates otherwise. The fact that they seldom contest elections and always do very badly doesn't negate the fact that they are mildly visible in the media and it is possible to find a reasonable amount of independent discussion of them. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maswimelleu — Thanks for your contributions both to this discussion and to the article. I'd be interested to see the additional material you've found about them, because I don't think that the referencing used in this article is enough to satisfy the GNG, with online magazine interviews with the party's leaders and a short newspaper blogpost. Ralbegen (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the notability bar for political parties is extremely low, and [1] plus the various primary references is enough. There are still content issues with the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The IB Times reference and primary sources definitely don't satisfy the GNG... Where is it established that political parties have a lower threshold for notability that the GNG requirement? Ralbegen (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not lower than WP:GNG, but really just enough to push them over the line. If you go check the fifth nomination discussion, you can see a list of AfDs of British political parties from December 2014. All of them were kept except one, which was a recreation of an article already deleted. Some of the articles that were kept were more poorly sourced than this one. The reason for this is that being registered as a party and participating in elections make you notable as well, which was the argument used to keep most of them. Emass100 (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the use of this argument led to several 'keep' decision is previous AfDs. I don't understand the policy basis, and I haven't seen it demonstrated to my satisfaction.
Having gone back to that AfD, I've found this !vote from Spinningspark which more clearly articulates my view on the article's relationship with the GNG, and registration contribution to notability, than I can. Ralbegen (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTROUTINE for clarification on what is and is not routine coverage. While non-elected candidates are usually considered non-notable as per WP:ROUTINE, I have never seen this argument being successfully used against a political party, and their "routine coverage" is instead used to demonstrate they do meet the WP:N. Emass100 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're referring to a reply above. I'm sorry for using language with specific meaning in a casual sense; my intention was to describe the material as not constituting terribly substantial coverage. I think the argument from the last nomination I linked above does a good job of dealing with the coverage. In particular, the consideration of interview material as primary. Ralbegen (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. However, this party did recieve coverage in multiple secondary sources. There is the Telegraph article and the one described in this !vote, which sadly has succombed to link rot, but can still be used to establish notability. Emass100 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The contribution of the Telegraph blogpost towards meeting the GNG is also dealt with in the linked !vote better than I can. The contribution you've cited there is from a user arguing that as the Telegraph blogpost and the now-extinct Bristol Post piece are the best sources available, notability criteria are not met and therefore the article should be deleted. Which is a position I also advocate. Ralbegen (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, those make the subject meet the GNG, which is the position I advocate. Combined with the fact it is a registered political party which stood in elections, then the article must be kept. Emass100 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG requires substantial coverage. To my reading, the user you've quoted is arguing that the sources provided don't constitute substantial coverage. You're welcome to ping the user in question to clarify their argument and the substance of the now-deleted article — as they voted delete in the last AfD, I'm wary of canvassing behaviour by doing so myself.
With regard to the party being registered and having stood in elections, I have not seen any editor provide a policy basis for the claim that this contributes towards inclusion criteria. Ralbegen (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for all the reasons I gave last time. Forming a political party in the UK is simple. Any small bunch of crazies can do it. According to Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 there are 468 registered British parties. The requirements for registering and standing candidates are extremely low. You don't even need to register your party either – not registering just means you can't put the party logo on the ballot papers. There is no way that they are all notable so the closing admin should discount out of hand any rationale that claims this party is notable by way of having stood in elections. SpinningSpark 18:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being a registered party and standing in election shows the seriousness of the organisation, as well as giving them verifiability on all the official records. Seeing that political parties have always been kept in Afd when their notability was only partially established, these arguments cannot be dismissed out of hand. Emass100 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Any registered political party that contests national elections is notable, no matter how minor. One wonders why this is being brought up for the seventh time. Emeraude (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the argument that has been made before, and on the basis of which the article has been kept before. I haven't seen a policy basis provided any of the times that this argument has been invoked — and I've linked before another user articulating the point better than I can. As you've asked why I nominated this article for deletion, I came to it from the Lewisham by-election article and started looking at how to tidy it up and move it away from reliance on self-sourcing. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to build an encyclopedic article from, and further that it doesn't have enough substantial coverage to pass the general notability guideline. In the end I only got rid of the most egregious section and nominated the article for deletion. Hopefully that clarifies my motivation. Ralbegen (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree. Do you think Above and Beyond Party are notable? Wikipedia can't be a holding pen for each and every attempt at party politics. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the party you linked is notable as well. It has reliable coverage from secondary sources, and is a registered party that participated in elections, giving them verifiability in official records. Emass100 (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion of content, let alone of a subject in the encyclopedia. That's determined by notability. Lots of companies are registered with Companies House that participate in the economy. That doesn't mean they're notable. (This is a comment in general and about the Libertarian Party rather than about the Above and Beyond Party, which I'm not familiar with). Ralbegen (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Libertarian_Party_(UK)_(6th_nomination)&oldid=1072143870"