Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal Union Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Arkyan • (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Liberal Union Party
The page is a useless stub. it contains no useful information and there are no sources to back any of it up. The page also suggests that "information is not available," indicating that the subject is not notable. The page's history has been around two years, and in this time nothing much has been added. It could all be made up. Dewarw 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete — Per CSD A1. ~ Magnus animuM Brain Freeze! 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)- Keep: It has reached the threshold of notability, but is still unnervingly short considering that there are over 2 million hits on google. ~ Magnus animuM Brain Freeze! 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I did not realise that I could have done a speedy delete for this page. If I had I would have done. The page is a waste of space- it needs to go. Speedy Delete! Dewarw 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- keep Even as nomianted this was not an A1 speedy -- it had context, although little content. But I have added several facts and three reliable sources. (all found on a simple google search, i might add, why did the nominator not try one?) Those clearly establish the factuality and IMO the notability of tjhis party, and give more to build on. DES (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly satisfies the notability criteria in WP:ORG; the length of the article is probably more symptomatic of WP:BIAS then of any notability concerns. CIreland 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A political party that forms or formed (even in part) the government of a country is notable per WP:ORG. If the article is inadequate, put on a tag or two. Albanian political parties are not by definition less notable than American or British ones. --Charlene 00:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep By posting their national election results which are clearly sourced, it counts as significant media coverage. Also, if they are currently part of a coalition government and is mentioned by the European Commission, then it will be noted in the government archives in years to come, and that makes it notable per WP:ORG.--Kylohk 10:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I can see the improvements, and they have made the page a lot better. However, the page is still a stub. If the party have been around for years, why is there not anymore to say? Dewarw 16:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are right it is a stub. But the answer is to expand it, not delete it. I suspoect that the problem is that online sources don't cover Albania nearly as well as they do, say England. Someone needs to dig into sources that do cover Albania batter and expand this. An example of WP:BIAS I fear. DES (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I am not biased, merely pointing out the page's weaknesses. As a constructive user, I favour development rather than deletion. However, in some cases deletion is necessary.It seems that now the page has been listed for deletion, something may be done to develop it. Before, nothing was beong done to the page. Dewarw 17:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon me, i was unclear. i didn't mean that you were biased, but thar the lack of avaialble online coverage was an example of the systematic bias of the internet, which contributes to Wikipedia's own systematic bias, which is what WP:BIAS is about. My apoligies if I seemed to imply that you or any editor in thsi discussion is persoanlly biased, i did not mean that. It is unfortunately true that in soemcases a deletion listing seems to be the only effective cleanup tag. I saw this on the AfD log, for example. DES (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment OK that fine.Dewarw 18:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Of course i could ask, when you saw the stub and decided to list it for deletion, did you consider doing a basic google search? All the links I added appear on the first page of a google search on Liberal Union Party Albania. DES (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I admit that I did not do the search. This is because I do not feel that i am qualified about adding details about a political party in a different country to mine. But please do not et me wrong- I am glad that the page is being developed. Dewarw 18:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon me, i was unclear. i didn't mean that you were biased, but thar the lack of avaialble online coverage was an example of the systematic bias of the internet, which contributes to Wikipedia's own systematic bias, which is what WP:BIAS is about. My apoligies if I seemed to imply that you or any editor in thsi discussion is persoanlly biased, i did not mean that. It is unfortunately true that in soemcases a deletion listing seems to be the only effective cleanup tag. I saw this on the AfD log, for example. DES (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
