Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Alliance of Libertarian Parties
- 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sal2100 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box]New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- International Alliance of Libertarian Parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. All the given sources are WP:PRIMARY or non-WP:RS-compliant. My WP:BEFORE search on multiple search engines found no RS-based significant coverage of this organization. Sal2100 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- After reviewing the comments of Goldsztajn and the sources they provided, I have determined that the subject passes at least the bare-minimum requirements of GNG. I am therefore withdrawing the nomination and closing as speedy keep. Sal2100 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Organizations, and Politics. Sal2100 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Essentially a members list which satisfies WP:NLIST.[1][2][3] Purely for verifying membership of the Alliance (a non-interpretative action), per WP:PRIMARY, sourcing to the organisation itself is acceptable.
- Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- The question still remains as to whether or not the Alliance itself is independently notable. While most of its members may be notable parties, after combing through multiple search engines (google news/newspapers/books/scholar/JSTOR, proquest, newsbank, etc.) I have not found RS-compliant significant coverage of the organization itself. Sal2100 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- The three reliable sources cited above discuss the members of the IALP as a class, WP:NLIST: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The NZZ piece I cannot see in full as it is behind a paywall, but the Contrepoint piece and article by Matuszek are clearly SIGCOV, so there's a pass of the GNG for the list topic. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- The question still remains as to whether or not the Alliance itself is independently notable. While most of its members may be notable parties, after combing through multiple search engines (google news/newspapers/books/scholar/JSTOR, proquest, newsbank, etc.) I have not found RS-compliant significant coverage of the organization itself. Sal2100 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2023 (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.