Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberty GB

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 to delete. Although Emeraude's much-improved version receives a considerable amount of support in this AfD, there is also substantial and well-argued support for a merge. This close does not preclude a merge; discussions about whether a merge is appropriate can continue on the relevant talk page. What this AfD has concluded is that Liberty GB should not be a redlink. NAC—S Marshall T/C 10:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Liberty GB

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

Proposal as administrative action per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_May_1. I offer no opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've never seen this reason for deletion given before, can anyone explain it to me? What does administrative action mean? The article could stand to be improved, but the party seems to get a lot of attention and press. Bali88 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It just means I've proposed it for deletion, not because I think it should be deleted, but as a function of my job as an admin. There was a deletion review, which I closed. Rather than making a decision myself on whether it should be deleted or not, I'm asking the larger community to make that decision. I personally don't have any opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. I hope that helps. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standing for election does not confer notability automatically. This party is only getting coverage because of forthcoming elections and a one-off event (the arrest by police of their leader). Nothing suggests notability to the standard we would usually expect from an organisation. doktorb _words^deeds 01:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Paul Weston; I can't ascertain any notability independent of him. Merely standing in a parliamentary election of sorts doesn't automatically confer notability; there are many parties that stood in 2010 that don't have articles either, especially when you get to "three candidates". Sceptre ^(talk) 04:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep I came across the article which was linked by this edit in Tell MAMA UK, which suggests that members of this party other than Paul Weston are being noted (albeit not by the national press). I also note that the reason the article in its original form was deleted was because it was created by a now banned user. With a link from the Tell MAMA article and possibly others, I would hope that less politically motivated/biased editors would keep an eye on such an article. Alfietucker (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update - having seen Emeraude's version, I am slightly more reassured by the appearance of more RS citations, so have upgraded to a Keep. Alfietucker (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion up this point is not about the current version of the page. I think people should read the deletion review discussion before coming to a conclusion. I started the review because I had attempted to create a page, but found that a page with the same name had already been deleted (though I clearly could not see what was on that page and so could not understand why it was deleted). The deleter would not allow re-creation, hence the deletion review. That has now been resolved and I had drafted a replacement page which I have just now uploaded. A number of contributors to the discussion review commented that my draft was acceptable and addressed the substantive issues of the original. Keep. Emeraude (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Paul Weston (politician) as per Sceptre. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Paul Weston (politician). With respect to Emeraude for rescuing this from salting, the party just isn't notable beyond having Paul Weston as its leader. You can see it in the way that this article is laid out - brief mention of the party's forming (by Weston), detail about Weston's personal life and various parties he's ditched, more brief mention of the party's candidates (one is Weston), and more detail on Weston's arrest. The party is inseparable from him; mention it in his article. I note that the party already is mentioned in his article and with more detail than what's here, so replacing this with a redirect would be very easy. Ivanvector (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, given the history of this article being deleted and recreated ~~by politically-biased editors~~, I propose that if the result of this AfD is merge/redirect, that the redirect be full-protected until some time after the upcoming election. Ivanvector (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per policy, this article passes WP:GNG and WP:RS. It has been covered by BBC, The Independent, and The Telegraph. Regardless of opinions, guidelines suggested notability in this case. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources of the party, its candidates, and controversies related to it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regarding reliable sources: the sources mentioned don't give any substantial coverage to the party beyond it being a creation of Paul Weston, as I noted above. The sources are really about him, not about the party or only really trivial coverage of the party's existence. It's not enough for WP:GNG. Ivanvector (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2014 (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.