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. Star Mississippi 18:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Initiative (Italy)[edit]

[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)

Unknown mini-component of the mixed group in the Chamber of Deputies, existed for a short time: the relevance of this subject is not demonstrated neither by the page nor by the existence of sources. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Liberal Initiative was a short-lived, but real political party, even if today its memory is virtually vanished: that is what encyclopedias are all about! Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias deal with relevant and / or interesting topics. Here we are talking about a mere component of the mixed group (not a real party) totally unknown and without relevance. You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per absence of reliable, third-party sources. Yakme (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rather obscure party, which didn't participate in any election at any level. It seems to have existed just as a parliamentary group. P1221 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the details of it might make sense mentioned on the respective politicians' page (if they are themselves notable, which is up in the air), but there's no sourcing demonstrating the exceed the GNG threshold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:07, 8 June 2022 (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.