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 redirect to Libertarian Party state affiliate, which is probably the most consensual outcome. The (very meagre) content is already there. This does not prejudice against a WP:SS spinoff should size considerations ever require one.  Sandstein  20:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party of Nebraska[edit]

Libertarian Party of Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable franchise (chapter) of national org, per WP:ORG. • Freechild'sup? 03:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you think there ought to be a redirect, why get rid of the page history? It might come in handy later if they become more notable in the future. --Explodicle (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it becomes a plain redirect, I think that would be okay. I struck out the delete recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have reviewed the sources that were added to the article, and I don't think any of them help establish this state party's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other stuff exists. If any of those lack notability, we should delete them too. --Explodicle (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible that some of the Libertarian state parties might be notable and others not; the party is more successful in some states than in others. Some of the state parties might have received significant coverage in their home states. At this point, I don't know which ones are notable and which ones are not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are also likely a lot of offline sources that we don't have access to (e.g. newsletters, local newspapers that don't post their content online). The best thing might be to redirect, while keeping an eye on http://www.lpedia.org/Libertarian_Party_of_Nebraska and the google results once in awhile to see if any new verifiable material emerges that would merit a separate article. I think that for niche subjects, we rely on interested parties seeking to promote their organizations to post all the pertinent content, sources, etc. needed to create an standalone article. And there is a rough correlation between notable topics and the presence of such actively interested parties, but sometimes one exists without the other; and in this case, it appears we are missing the latter. As for why said actively interested person didn't show up, we can only speculate. There are some cases where people just don't feel like editing Wikipedia to put their organization's stuff on here, whether because they don't feel like it, or they've had bad experiences with Wikipedia in the past, etc. There are only a few thousand extremely active Wikipedians, and what are the chances that one of them will happen to be sufficiently familiar with the Libertarian Party of Nebraska to write an article about it? In this case, the roll of the dice happened to land on the side of not having such an individual here. The situation is regrettable, but it is what it is. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Knowledge of the subject is not keeping this article from existing on WP. The fact of the matter, which I discuss below, is that the topic of the article simply is not notable enough for inclusion. There could be dozens of newsletters within the chapter, hundreds of articles within the chapter, and thousands of members - but until that is noted by a reliable source, namely someone outside of the chapter, this is simply not a notable enough topic to include on WP. • Freechild'sup? 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and I am saying that reliable sources outside of the chapter could very well (and probably do) exist that are offline. That is not really intended to affect the outcome of the AFD, but simply as commentary on the roots of systemic bias, which might inform future discussions on the notability of this topic (since it quite possibly could come up again). Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you please post the sources? I'm having trouble finding any good ones. --Explodicle (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added reliable sources--Serviam (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discussion of sources is below) --Explodicle (T/C) 18:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why we say "other stuff exists". A HUGE portion of those articles are just as lacking in sources as this one. If you want uniformity, then we should uniformly apply the deletion policy to every article instead of granting the Libertarians a special exception. --Explodicle (T/C) 01:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You realize what happened, though, right? Someone decided that we should have a set of articles on all the LP state affiliates in the country, and figured, "Eh, rather than create a unique article on each one (which would involve a lot of duplication of typing), let me take this spreadsheet of the names of state chairs and generate wiki pages for each one. Later I or someone else can expand them." I think that's what collaborative editing and eventualism are all about - you start out with stubs and over time they expand. We should not presume the other affiliates with stub articles to be non-notable just because not much evidence of this chapter's activity is turning up on the web. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and that guideline is descriptive, not prescriptive, and let me mention again that it is only a guideline. In the interest of uniformity and general completeness, these articles should be kept. There are numerous reliable sources out there, as this prooves, just nobody has bothered to include them, and I can't atm because I'm working on another article. You would also do well to re-read Aldrich's comment, you're reply doesn't seem to indicate that you understood it.--Serviam (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware that we can make exceptions to the guidelines, but don't think that the "uniformity and completeness" philosophy that apparently has no community consensus is reason enough to ignore them. A Google search proves nothing unless we can establish that some of those hits are valid (see below). I understand Aldrich's comments, but agree more with the larger consensus reflected in the guidelines than I agree with him. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added in reliable, third party references for all points of information in the article, so it now meets WP:N completely and that's an invalid reason to delete. I urge all of you people who said delete above to recosider.--Serviam (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came across those sources when I Googled it too. This is a forum and this is a blog; self-published sources like these are generally not acceptable. This page only appears to list contact information. None of these address the subject directly in detail as required. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the personal discussion to the talk page. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, I think this is a fair compromise. --Explodicle (T/C) 01:49, 30 June 2008 (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.
More