The result was delete; discussion indicates that the subject is not covered in reliable sources as required by the policy on notability. -- jonny- m t 16:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable minor political party. Sources provided are for the most part it's own web site. Article admits to virtually no coverage from the press. Ninety members out of millions of voters is hardly an accomplishment. DarkAudit ( talk) 05:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It seems to me that notability should not be an issue in any case. This is a party registered with the Electoral Commission in the United Kingdom: the party exists and the fact that the party exists is documented in the records of the UK state. I don't quite see how Wikipedia can pretend that it does not exist, for that is what is occurring here.
Is Wikipedia aspiring to be a proper encyclopaedia or is it merely aiming to be an aggregator of what is popular? If Wikipedia denies the existence of this party, despite UK state records to the contrary, then it is merely a populist aggregator, not an encyclopaedia (and should therefore remove "The Free Encyclopedia" tag from its logo.
The party has hundreds of mentions across tens of political weblogs. Whilst I am aware that blogs probably carry no weight with the Wikipedia's editors, they nevertheless testify to the party's influence throughout the UK political blogosphere.
As I say: the party exists and it would be perverse to deny that fact (and even more perverse when Wikipedia has articles on far smaller and less significant parties). Devilskitchen ( talk) 18:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
SPA Activities Report. Devilskitchen is an SPA designed to promote minor blogger Chris Mounsey and the minuscule British Libertarian Party. It is no coincidence that Devilskitchen has the same name as Mounsey's blog. Chris Mounsey is also up for deletion, btw [1]. The SPA evidence is here: [2]. My guess is that Mounsey and the British Libertarians, who have failed thus far to get national, well-referenced notability for the minuscule party and its tangential blog, are now determined to confer notability upon themselves by hijacking Wikipedia toward that purpose. Both this article and Chris Mounsey should be deleted forthwith, then salted if recreated. Qworty ( talk) 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.
This delete argument is doing just that -- promoting bias towards larger organizations. Never mind the fact that the mainstream media selects for itself what organizations are deemed "notable". I'm not sure why anyone would think that the MSM -- which is in a serious nosedive as far as revenue and readership is concerned, compared to internet news sources -- is a reliable indicator of notability. Further:
"... for political parties, very small has usually been considered good enough if there's a real party, and not just a group of like-minded friends. In this case it seems to be five, individually named, like-minded friends. Maybe they'll get support. Then there can be an article.
I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning. The five members as stated were merely the party's founders. A party officer says there are currently ~150 contributing supporters -- in the face of a MSM blackout. 150 is more than 5, and those certainly 150 "support" the party. If one were to visit, say, the Labour Party page, there is only one leader (Gordon Brown) listed at all. Is there some standard by which the UK Libs need to list the names of their 150 members to have even a shot at being considered "notable", and some other standard by which Labour only needs to list its one leader? If this is the case, perhaps this should be clarified in WikiPedia's policies.
I was the person who established this iteration of the article back in January. I was unaware of the deletion of a previous article on the group. I would agree that some of the large number of edits from one individual have added what may well be irrelevant material, but the article itself is certainly relevant. -- MarcMontoni ( talk) 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
As I've said, it's up to you guys. There really isn't a promotion motive here: average referrals from Wikipedia come to about 3 a day out of a daily average of 300 uniques. Wikipedia is surely about finding information and that is what I volunteered. Oh, and I never suspected a political motive, DarkAudit. Devilskitchen ( talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete; discussion indicates that the subject is not covered in reliable sources as required by the policy on notability. -- jonny- m t 16:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable minor political party. Sources provided are for the most part it's own web site. Article admits to virtually no coverage from the press. Ninety members out of millions of voters is hardly an accomplishment. DarkAudit ( talk) 05:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It seems to me that notability should not be an issue in any case. This is a party registered with the Electoral Commission in the United Kingdom: the party exists and the fact that the party exists is documented in the records of the UK state. I don't quite see how Wikipedia can pretend that it does not exist, for that is what is occurring here.
Is Wikipedia aspiring to be a proper encyclopaedia or is it merely aiming to be an aggregator of what is popular? If Wikipedia denies the existence of this party, despite UK state records to the contrary, then it is merely a populist aggregator, not an encyclopaedia (and should therefore remove "The Free Encyclopedia" tag from its logo.
The party has hundreds of mentions across tens of political weblogs. Whilst I am aware that blogs probably carry no weight with the Wikipedia's editors, they nevertheless testify to the party's influence throughout the UK political blogosphere.
As I say: the party exists and it would be perverse to deny that fact (and even more perverse when Wikipedia has articles on far smaller and less significant parties). Devilskitchen ( talk) 18:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
SPA Activities Report. Devilskitchen is an SPA designed to promote minor blogger Chris Mounsey and the minuscule British Libertarian Party. It is no coincidence that Devilskitchen has the same name as Mounsey's blog. Chris Mounsey is also up for deletion, btw [1]. The SPA evidence is here: [2]. My guess is that Mounsey and the British Libertarians, who have failed thus far to get national, well-referenced notability for the minuscule party and its tangential blog, are now determined to confer notability upon themselves by hijacking Wikipedia toward that purpose. Both this article and Chris Mounsey should be deleted forthwith, then salted if recreated. Qworty ( talk) 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.
This delete argument is doing just that -- promoting bias towards larger organizations. Never mind the fact that the mainstream media selects for itself what organizations are deemed "notable". I'm not sure why anyone would think that the MSM -- which is in a serious nosedive as far as revenue and readership is concerned, compared to internet news sources -- is a reliable indicator of notability. Further:
"... for political parties, very small has usually been considered good enough if there's a real party, and not just a group of like-minded friends. In this case it seems to be five, individually named, like-minded friends. Maybe they'll get support. Then there can be an article.
I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning. The five members as stated were merely the party's founders. A party officer says there are currently ~150 contributing supporters -- in the face of a MSM blackout. 150 is more than 5, and those certainly 150 "support" the party. If one were to visit, say, the Labour Party page, there is only one leader (Gordon Brown) listed at all. Is there some standard by which the UK Libs need to list the names of their 150 members to have even a shot at being considered "notable", and some other standard by which Labour only needs to list its one leader? If this is the case, perhaps this should be clarified in WikiPedia's policies.
I was the person who established this iteration of the article back in January. I was unaware of the deletion of a previous article on the group. I would agree that some of the large number of edits from one individual have added what may well be irrelevant material, but the article itself is certainly relevant. -- MarcMontoni ( talk) 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
As I've said, it's up to you guys. There really isn't a promotion motive here: average referrals from Wikipedia come to about 3 a day out of a daily average of 300 uniques. Wikipedia is surely about finding information and that is what I volunteered. Oh, and I never suspected a political motive, DarkAudit. Devilskitchen ( talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply