Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK)
- 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 per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Editors interested in pursuing a merge of this material elsewhere are invited to discuss the matter on the article talkpage. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 23:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Libertarian Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested PROD. And this ties in with the on-going discussions at User:Doktorbuk/pp relating to the lack of notability rules for political parties. The Libertarian Party (UK) fail WP:N as they have no recorded history of campaigning, they have no elected representatives, no recorded evidence of significant campaigning outside the electoral context of the Henley by-election, 2008, which is their first candidature. They may be notable in the future, but WP:Crystal suggests we cannot assume they will. See the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money Reform Party debate for a comparative example. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already linked to at bi-election.Smeeee (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The discussions at User:Doktorbuk/pp are still preliminary and no consensus has been reached. (And personally I think your criteria are too restrictive, but that discussion belongs elsewhere!) Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An article on this party has been up for AfD before in March when the consensus was for deletion. See at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (United Kingdom) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since then the party has put up a candidate in the Henley by-election, 2008. I consider this sufficient grounds for not just reinstating the previous consensus without further discussion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment That is very interesting, and I think helps my case, in that this party as just as non-notable as they were in March, but with the only difference being a non-notable candidate who has yet to record any electoral history in the UK. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since then the party has put up a candidate in the Henley by-election, 2008. I consider this sufficient grounds for not just reinstating the previous consensus without further discussion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Those aren't policy guidelines as of yet, and I would support changing them. I would argue that participation in a current national election is grounds for an article, as it clearly draws interest because of that and because its activities are observed for the duration of the campaign in a public domain. If, after the election, the party sinks without a mention in a published source, feel free to delete. Bastin 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Anyone with a few hundred quid deposit can put himself up as a candidate for a UK parliamentary seat, so it is not itself a criterion for notability. What's more, that's not the way WP works. WP:CRYSTAL says that there can be no presumptions of future notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unless I'm completely misreading it WP:CRYSTAL doesn't say anything of the kind. It says some things which could be interpreted that way, but that's all. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Anyone with a few hundred quid deposit can put himself up as a candidate for a UK parliamentary seat, so it is not itself a criterion for notability. What's more, that's not the way WP works. WP:CRYSTAL says that there can be no presumptions of future notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Given the non-notable nature of the party as they currently are would you accept a merge to Libertarianism_in_the_United_Kingdom until such time as the party are genuinely notable (currently that is open to debate, the proposal is 2 years of campaigning/elections) doktorb wordsdeeds 09:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge I agree that this is a sensible approach; indeed I started implementing it last night. I would then suggest replacing the current page by a redirect. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge I had no idea there was a Libertarian party in the UK, all these years here, and this is the first I've heard of it. --Doug Weller (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's because it was founded six months ago, as the article clearly states. Nach0king (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Indeed. The idea of an explicit Libertarian Party has been kicked around so many times in published journals that I'd think that 'British Libertarian Party' would justify an article even if there was no party by that name. Bastin 14:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- OopsCareless of me, but I still think merge is sensible until and if the time comes it is notable enough to warrant its own article. Doug Weller (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's because it was founded six months ago, as the article clearly states. Nach0king (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2008 (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.