Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life and Liberty Party

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 delete. In evaluating this discussion, I assigned greater weight towards comments that offered analyses that cited Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly the general notability guideline. The consensus within that context is that there is insufficient coverage about this topic in reliable sources to demonstrate that this topic is notable. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Life and Liberty Party

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unreferenced article does not meet WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE revealed no independent sources that provide coverage directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 03:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just added references, there are a total of 3 at the moment--Lummymania (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lummymania, I just did a check and you may want to check here [1] about copyright issues and read Wikipedia:Copyrights. The text of the article will need to be rewritten. If you can clean up the text from copyright and find independent reliable secondary sources that address the topic directly and in-depth (see WP:GNG and WP:RS). I noticed you are new, and I know creating your first article can be difficult since there is a lot to learn about notability wp:N, what a reliable source is for establishing notability (which is very different than an acceptable source for information in an article) WP:RS and writing with a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. I'd be happy to answer any questions I can and if I don't know the answer I can probably point you to someone else who can help. Best wishes. // Timothy :: talk 04:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the closest thing to significant coverage in reliable sources I could find is a paragraph and a passing mention in the reliable Ballot Access News, seen here [2] and here: [3], but those alone are clearly not enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also (majority of my references) cited Politics1, which is a noted non-partisan site which also lists the Life and Liberty Party and JR Myers candidacy. Given the praise Politics1 receives from various election official across the country, I think they constitute a reliable source, and it would diminish the accuracy of wikipedia to exclude a candidacy that is listed on a reputable political information source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:D118:604A:658D:8037:51E3:24B3 (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. Sources only suggest existence rather than any notable achievement and there is no evidence of notability prior to, or during, election campaigns. Usefulness is not a valid reason to keep. doktorb _words^deeds 17:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The party does exist, and omitting it would do people a disservice. Not sure if it will be a long term political force or a short term foot note. Either way, they have ballot access and at least for this election are relevant--Lummymania (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A previous article with this party's name has been deleted through AfD already - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Life_and_liberty_party doktorb _words^deeds 13:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article eligible for WP:G4 speedy deletion, especially given how that was just a month ago? Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's tagged for CSD G12 too. I can't see the deleted version, but my guess is it's probably substantially the same and a month sounds pretty recent to me. Maybe whatever admin deals with this can consider WP:SALT it. // Timothy :: talk 22:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not eligible for G4, text is quite dissimilar. The copyvios have mostly been dealt with. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has ballot access in several states, there are far less notable political parties with pages.XavierGreen (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2020 (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.