Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (Sweden)
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 Delete. Sourcing concerns not addressed. Shimeru 16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Libertarian Party (Sweden)
Non-notable Swedish political party. A google search reveals that while the party has indeed been mentioned in a lot of blogs, there are no credible sources discussing the party to establish its notability. If you look for yourselves, don't be fooled by http://www2.unt.se/harkiv/li/liberala_partiet/ - it lists only articles related to the Liberal Party of Canada and to the Liberal People's Party (Sweden). Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Epbr123 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No assertion of notability. Even the article its self says the Party is hardly known.--Bryson 03:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There are many articles on various parties on wikipedia that is even less known. Why would this article be any more special and deserve a deletion? This article has at least more information presented than many other minor parties have. Lord Metroid 23:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Two wrongs don't make a right. Epbr123 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Still why would one want to delete legitimate information from a place which Wales expresses the goal to be to consolidate all the world's knowledge in one place. Lord Metroid 08:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because of WP:N... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment From the first lines paragraph of WP:N: All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"., there is no doubt that the party lacks fame or even widely known except for the very political interested and active people. Yet, it is worthy of being noted because it is an official party that did participate in the election of 2006. Lord Metroid 14:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why is no-one talking about it then? Epbr123 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Even if it is worthy of being noted (I don't think so), claiming it is without attribution to a reliable source would be original research. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Original research for arguments whether to keep or not? Come'on! Are you serious? Do I need to reference my arguments now? Isn't it enough with referencing articles anymore? but fine... Referencing them being a party in the election and getting votes: val.se, official homepage and media exposure: Klassiska Liberala Partiet ad aired on TV3 Lord Metroid 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- An official website and a party political broadcast are not independent resources. Epbr123 13:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Did you even read a) WP:N and b) what I said? I did not ask for confirmation that the party existed, I asked for confirmation that it was notable. There is a slight difference. In the liberal democracy of Sweden, anyone - including yours truly - can start a political party, throw up a website, and put a propaganda film on youtube. The funny thing is that your link to val.se doesn't link to the section of val.se where the registered parties are, but rather to the list of election results. The Libertarian Party has not yet collected the 1,500 signatures that are needed to officially stand in elections, 202 persons just voted on them anyways. So. Read the "general notability criterion" of WP:N again: "A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." Has the Libertarian Party? No. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- An official website and a party political broadcast are not independent resources. Epbr123 13:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Original research for arguments whether to keep or not? Come'on! Are you serious? Do I need to reference my arguments now? Isn't it enough with referencing articles anymore? but fine... Referencing them being a party in the election and getting votes: val.se, official homepage and media exposure: Klassiska Liberala Partiet ad aired on TV3 Lord Metroid 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Even if it is worthy of being noted (I don't think so), claiming it is without attribution to a reliable source would be original research. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why is no-one talking about it then? Epbr123 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment From the first lines paragraph of WP:N: All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"., there is no doubt that the party lacks fame or even widely known except for the very political interested and active people. Yet, it is worthy of being noted because it is an official party that did participate in the election of 2006. Lord Metroid 14:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because of WP:N... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Still why would one want to delete legitimate information from a place which Wales expresses the goal to be to consolidate all the world's knowledge in one place. Lord Metroid 08:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Two wrongs don't make a right. Epbr123 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There seems to be enough information to write an article. I do not see how WP can fairly decide on the significance of political parties-- anymore than it can on religions an nationalist movements. The only practice free of POV is to give an article for any such organization possessing a verifiable identity and some source of information. It can generally be presumed that arguments about the N of the subject are o some extent arguments about the politics (or religion or whatever involved. We can't arbitrate that sort of question.The threshold in these cases has to be low. DGG 23:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, you're wrong. Including every single movement or organisation that claims to have an opinion, verifiable identity and some source of information, would require us to include every single political splinter group and joke party ever. That's crap. The "general notability criterion" of WP:N (as people apparently haven't read it themselves I must cite it) reads "A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject" and is perfectly applicable to any organisation, political, religious, philosophical or whatever. It has nothing to do with WP:NPOV. Read WP:NPOV again. Perhaps you're thinking of WP:BIAS, though that is hardly applicable to this case either. In the very unlikely case either of you (LordMetroid or DGG) would contest that the Libertarian Party does not meet WP:N, one might continue to WP:A - yes, LordMetroid attempted to reference three sites; but in this case the own website is a self-published source (published by the subject of the article and as thus WP:COI and POV), youtube is a self-published source (anyone can upload a video to YouTube...) and val.se just lists election results and would hardly be used to legitimate an article on VIKINGAPARTIET-VALVARUHUSET 53 PARTIER. I think I'm done now, thank you. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- comment They video on youtube was published on TV3's Insider about the minority parties. Quite a comedy as they had like 25 minor parties in the studio at the same time but none-the less. It is a serious topic and notable although not famous. Lord Metroid 18:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, ok. But that's still just one source (and I guess it passes as "reliable" although I doubt that...) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- comment They video on youtube was published on TV3's Insider about the minority parties. Quite a comedy as they had like 25 minor parties in the studio at the same time but none-the less. It is a serious topic and notable although not famous. Lord Metroid 18:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, you're wrong. Including every single movement or organisation that claims to have an opinion, verifiable identity and some source of information, would require us to include every single political splinter group and joke party ever. That's crap. The "general notability criterion" of WP:N (as people apparently haven't read it themselves I must cite it) reads "A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject" and is perfectly applicable to any organisation, political, religious, philosophical or whatever. It has nothing to do with WP:NPOV. Read WP:NPOV again. Perhaps you're thinking of WP:BIAS, though that is hardly applicable to this case either. In the very unlikely case either of you (LordMetroid or DGG) would contest that the Libertarian Party does not meet WP:N, one might continue to WP:A - yes, LordMetroid attempted to reference three sites; but in this case the own website is a self-published source (published by the subject of the article and as thus WP:COI and POV), youtube is a self-published source (anyone can upload a video to YouTube...) and val.se just lists election results and would hardly be used to legitimate an article on VIKINGAPARTIET-VALVARUHUSET 53 PARTIER. I think I'm done now, thank you. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I can't help to notice the lack of strong arguments for deletion. It is a small party yes, however it's a serious organisation and is the only party for that specific ideologi in Sweden. It is most noteworthy information for someone interested the libertarian movment around the world. Also I can't help to notice that the person arguing for deletion is himself/herself an anarchist who; I quote "contribute to a wide variety of articles, although primarily on articles related to the Swedish left". So it's not that surprising that he/she wants to delete an article about the Swedish right. Xincon 23:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article has no secondary sources, therefore the subject is not notable and therefore doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether its a serious organisation or interesting to libertarians. Epbr123 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Although I was expecting LordMetroid to make that point, I was just waiting for it. Your argument is a logical fallacy: that I am anarchist that contributes to left-wing articles does not mean I am a left-wing anarchist. You have no idea whether I am from the socialist camp of anarchism, or from the capitalist. In any case that is just a userbox, compared to an image covering 1/4 of the userpage at first glance. Another point I however would like to raise is that Xincon has made exactly ONE edit: when he wrote the above.
But, leaving the editors and focusing on the article, that it is a serious organisation does not merit it's inclusion in Wikipedia. There is no article on Alternativa politikerveckan, although it's got press coverage in several nation-wide media several years in a row. As an encyclopedia, it is our duty to filter out information that is encyclopedic and noteworthy - because we care about the reader, we choose to leave parties that gain ~200 votes and never got any media attention out. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)- "You have no idea whether I am from the socialist camp of anarchism, or from the capitalist." I quote from your userpage; "Furthermore. I am an anarchist. The primary reason behind me being a drug-free anarchist is not that I have the right to do what the fuck I want to and I want to stay clean, but rather that I believe drugs - including alcohol - are merely a capitalist method of passivisation. You are not participating in the struggle if you are home beating wife and kids. You are not participating in the struggle if you are lying on a sidewalk, puking after a night of heavy partying. You are not participating in the struggle if you are watching soccer and having a beer with your friends. It pacifies you. It turns you into a drone, a working drone - slave of the capital." Oh, I'm sorry. That was rude of me. No, I really don't have any idea at all if you are a left- or rightside anarchist. None. Really, it's a mystery. Xincon 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then again, that was in one of my talkpage archives, wasn't it? And you didn't read that until I pointed out the logical fallacy, did you? So, either you are some sort of wiki-stalker (reading my archives just because you're meeting me in an AfD discussion), or you made the claims first and checked the facts later. Either way, let's focus on the (perceived?) lack of notability instead, shall we? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I did read that before I made my first edit, otherwise my statement would be quite bold, but the reason I didn't include it is that I never thought you would deny something so easy to check. And I do belive that you still lead the stalker-league with your Alkanen-welcome. Xincon 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Haha! Good point there. But that was not out of stalking. Most Swedish bloggers are well aware of Wikipedia, and it would be foolish to assume that a founder of a new party wouldn't have a look at the Wikipedia article at least sometimes. If I started a party, I'd defend it in AfDs too. WP:COI is perfectly natural. That, coupled with my experiences of another liberal, namely Leo Pierini, let me to assume alkanen would drop by. Correctly, apparently. ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I did read that before I made my first edit, otherwise my statement would be quite bold, but the reason I didn't include it is that I never thought you would deny something so easy to check. And I do belive that you still lead the stalker-league with your Alkanen-welcome. Xincon 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then again, that was in one of my talkpage archives, wasn't it? And you didn't read that until I pointed out the logical fallacy, did you? So, either you are some sort of wiki-stalker (reading my archives just because you're meeting me in an AfD discussion), or you made the claims first and checked the facts later. Either way, let's focus on the (perceived?) lack of notability instead, shall we? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't bring it up because I assume good intention. Although I have to admit I have been quite frustrated about your deletionism on more than on one occasion. But that is irrelevant! Lord Metroid 11:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are more than welcome to raise those points over at Wikipedia:Editor review/Jobjörn, though! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- "You have no idea whether I am from the socialist camp of anarchism, or from the capitalist." I quote from your userpage; "Furthermore. I am an anarchist. The primary reason behind me being a drug-free anarchist is not that I have the right to do what the fuck I want to and I want to stay clean, but rather that I believe drugs - including alcohol - are merely a capitalist method of passivisation. You are not participating in the struggle if you are home beating wife and kids. You are not participating in the struggle if you are lying on a sidewalk, puking after a night of heavy partying. You are not participating in the struggle if you are watching soccer and having a beer with your friends. It pacifies you. It turns you into a drone, a working drone - slave of the capital." Oh, I'm sorry. That was rude of me. No, I really don't have any idea at all if you are a left- or rightside anarchist. None. Really, it's a mystery. Xincon 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As Xincon said, this is the only political party in Sweden with this ideology. In fact, it is the only party in Sweden without any socialist ideas. As for Jobjörn's argument that the article should be deleted because it got roughly 200 votes, why don't you target Unika partiet? /Daniel Lindsäth 16:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hello there, Alkanen! I was waiting for your arrival. Regarding your concern about the Unique Party - I sure would like to delete it because it's the one of the most stupid party to date (I'd rather vote for your party any day), but media doesn't agree: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
Soooehhh.... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC) - Here's more! [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. Nice of you to think of me =) I hope you understood that my comment wasn't meant to imply that their page should be deleted, not matter how stupid I think that party is (and I do think it's stupid). Naturally Swedish media was all over their party, they had a pseudo celebrity bimbo as their party leader. Do you really think that such a thing is more noteworthy and a party with a completely unique – for Sweden that is – political platform? Will it help if I find the two news paper articles about our party? I don't know if there are any online versions of them (but I think there's a pdf of at least one), but I believe I have paper copies somewhere. /Daniel Lindsäth 16:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't assume that changing my mind is your goal here - I am not Wikipedia policy. However, I would consider the party notable according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies if you could cite two reliable sources that deal with the party. While I personally would consider the Libertarian Party way more important and notable than the Unique Party, the views of individual editors are of no importance - we look to the world to see what it says. And the world, that is the media, whether one likes it or not. And sadly, media likes stupid things. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment regarding political parties it is kind of a catch 22. Because the parties doesn't get any publication from the press before a party is famous. But it is the massmedia who makes them famous and they will not write anything until the party is famous and even if and when a party is famous but not a a sitting parlimamentary party the media discriminate relentlessly. Lord Metroid 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Somewhat true, but that's democracy. Luckily for the parliamentarian western democracies, there are exceptions: Unique Party, Pirate Party, Junilistan, Feminist Initiative (Sweden), Health Care Party... they all got plenty of media attention. If they can, so can Klassiskt Liberala Partiet. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Those parties are quite special, Unique Party, Junilistan and Feminist Initiative (Sweden) all have front figures celebrities, the Health Care Party have existed for a very long time and like the Pirate Party had the event of civil catastrophies behind their ideologies. The Health Care Party had the closing of hospitals in Norrland which is somewhat catastrophic for the population up in Norrland and hence became popular and the Pirate Party had The Pirate Bay raid event which gave the Pirate Party an event of juridical catastrophy to associate their issue with and hence rode the wave on that. This party is against the society of Sweden in general from bottom to top and hence have a hard time becomming famous because the concept of libertarianism is so unkown almost no one Swede even grasps the possibility of such an ideology's existence. I sure didn't understand it before I thurally studied American history. Lord Metroid 21:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps. What you are saying that circumstances beyond the control of these parties made them notable - which is true, and there is no problem with it. You are further saying that the party isn't notable in Sweden because noone grasps the concept - perhaps also true. In any case it isn't notable, and it isn't notable on an international scale either - it's really really REALLY small! Perhaps you (are you also a member of the party by the way?) should consider notifying some American scholar of your existence and perhaps s/he will write about "Libertarianism in Sweden" mentioning you. That would be one hell of a third party reliable source. Try it out. As of now, though, noone has written about the party and as thus it does not meet Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Notability. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment No, not a member and don't want to be a member for a number of reasons. Lord Metroid 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- So you seriously believe that being ignored by the media is the same as not being notable? Curious idea... Anyways, regarding contacting american scholars and similar, we were mentioned on a Free Talk Live episode (viz. 2006-05-11). Good enough for you? /Daniel Lindsäth 05:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:N? Epbr123 08:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That would make two reliable sources, this radio broadcast and TV3's broadcast. Lord Metroid 07:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps. What you are saying that circumstances beyond the control of these parties made them notable - which is true, and there is no problem with it. You are further saying that the party isn't notable in Sweden because noone grasps the concept - perhaps also true. In any case it isn't notable, and it isn't notable on an international scale either - it's really really REALLY small! Perhaps you (are you also a member of the party by the way?) should consider notifying some American scholar of your existence and perhaps s/he will write about "Libertarianism in Sweden" mentioning you. That would be one hell of a third party reliable source. Try it out. As of now, though, noone has written about the party and as thus it does not meet Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Notability. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Those parties are quite special, Unique Party, Junilistan and Feminist Initiative (Sweden) all have front figures celebrities, the Health Care Party have existed for a very long time and like the Pirate Party had the event of civil catastrophies behind their ideologies. The Health Care Party had the closing of hospitals in Norrland which is somewhat catastrophic for the population up in Norrland and hence became popular and the Pirate Party had The Pirate Bay raid event which gave the Pirate Party an event of juridical catastrophy to associate their issue with and hence rode the wave on that. This party is against the society of Sweden in general from bottom to top and hence have a hard time becomming famous because the concept of libertarianism is so unkown almost no one Swede even grasps the possibility of such an ideology's existence. I sure didn't understand it before I thurally studied American history. Lord Metroid 21:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Somewhat true, but that's democracy. Luckily for the parliamentarian western democracies, there are exceptions: Unique Party, Pirate Party, Junilistan, Feminist Initiative (Sweden), Health Care Party... they all got plenty of media attention. If they can, so can Klassiskt Liberala Partiet. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment regarding political parties it is kind of a catch 22. Because the parties doesn't get any publication from the press before a party is famous. But it is the massmedia who makes them famous and they will not write anything until the party is famous and even if and when a party is famous but not a a sitting parlimamentary party the media discriminate relentlessly. Lord Metroid 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't assume that changing my mind is your goal here - I am not Wikipedia policy. However, I would consider the party notable according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies if you could cite two reliable sources that deal with the party. While I personally would consider the Libertarian Party way more important and notable than the Unique Party, the views of individual editors are of no importance - we look to the world to see what it says. And the world, that is the media, whether one likes it or not. And sadly, media likes stupid things. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. Nice of you to think of me =) I hope you understood that my comment wasn't meant to imply that their page should be deleted, not matter how stupid I think that party is (and I do think it's stupid). Naturally Swedish media was all over their party, they had a pseudo celebrity bimbo as their party leader. Do you really think that such a thing is more noteworthy and a party with a completely unique – for Sweden that is – political platform? Will it help if I find the two news paper articles about our party? I don't know if there are any online versions of them (but I think there's a pdf of at least one), but I believe I have paper copies somewhere. /Daniel Lindsäth 16:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hello there, Alkanen! I was waiting for your arrival. Regarding your concern about the Unique Party - I sure would like to delete it because it's the one of the most stupid party to date (I'd rather vote for your party any day), but media doesn't agree: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
- Keep There have already been a discussion about it on the Swedish version of the page and the decision was to keep it./Wolfenstein 12:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Swedish afd (sv:Wikipedia:Sidor som bör raderas/Liberala Partiet (Sverige)) was never closed, but if one should look at the vote count (sv-wiki apparently practices voting in AfDs...), 18 people voted in favor of deletion and 11 against. There was also apparently some vote stacking by users registered after the beginning of the vote; one of them by sv:Användare:Wolfenstein. In any case, this is not the Swedish Wikipedia, and the results of Swedish AfDs have nothing to do with English AfDs. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- But my vote here still counts./Wolfenstein 17:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- And by the way check the date of creation on my user page.Wolfenstein 17:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a vote. Polling is evil. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Swedish afd (sv:Wikipedia:Sidor som bör raderas/Liberala Partiet (Sverige)) was never closed, but if one should look at the vote count (sv-wiki apparently practices voting in AfDs...), 18 people voted in favor of deletion and 11 against. There was also apparently some vote stacking by users registered after the beginning of the vote; one of them by sv:Användare:Wolfenstein. In any case, this is not the Swedish Wikipedia, and the results of Swedish AfDs have nothing to do with English AfDs. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:30, 3 April 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.
