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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Alliance

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject lacks notability. All of the "references" are to a small handful of libertarian website/blogs of similar ilk. The "papers" are home-spun and the "journals" are not peer reviewed. A google search of the name returns only this wikipedia article and links to the same libertarian blogs. There is no indication that the group has been mentioned in any reliable media sources. AlexaxelA (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There a 7 Google news results and 68,000 Google search hits. As stated above, they are all to blogs or libertarian websites. If one searches the google news archives, however, there are some results from reliable sources. The LA has generated content in the Birmingham Post and BBC News. Note that some of the news is about a "[group here]-libertarian alliance", not specifically about this organization. Their coverage seems to be in passing: all the attention they garner is around two sentences, along the lines of "Joe Somebody of the Libertarian Alliance opposes this issue. 'I oppose this.'" -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pre-eminent market libertarian organisation in the UK. A problem may be that the peak time of the Libertarian Alliance was around 20 years ago, in the age before Google. I'll look for more sources but here for example is the Guardian obituary for Chris Tame, written in the context of the organisation: [1]. AllyD (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And further, also from the Guardian, here's their publication of a debate between the Libertarian Alliance and the Institute for Public Policy Research: [2]. AllyD (talk)

More references: BBC News articles from 2006 & 2008: [3], [4]; probable citation in this publication according to Google: [5]. All in all, this seems enough to confirm that "the group has been mentioned in any reliable media sources". AllyD (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can buy an obituary and name their organization in it. Most of the news articles I found were generated by the members of the libertarian alliance. the alliance itself wasn't newsworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MutantPlatypus (talk • contribs) 20:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Do you have a source for your assertion that anyone can "buy" a Guardian obituary? AllyD (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Books.google has a number of good refs on Chris Tame and Libertarian Alliance. If Ally doesn't add these refs, I will. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one of the book refs from that Google search into the article itself, but note various others from reputable independent publications available only in Snippet view. I can't really see how, on the basis of the refs provided above, this group can be regarded as lacking significant 3rd party coverage; perhaps their prolific blogging actually weakens the case, by making it hard to see past the opinion pieces? AllyD (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but source it more. I worked on it for a while way back when just trying to straighten out the two groups and did note the lack of WP:RS. If you find some, put them in. I just noted that google books had a few refs also to the 1960s group Libertarian Alliance so that should further confuse things - but also points out why it might be good to keep the article and mention all three groups. There certainly are lots of groups on wikipedia that have little more than their organization description and a few stray refs. But at least an encyclopedic function is being fulfilled. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One thing is clear - this article definitely needs to be improved, deepened into their interventions on particular issues. But I see that as more for article rescue than deletion. AllyD (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is insignificant.--Pink Bull 14:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllyD and CarolMooreDC; that it was notable at one time, at least, is confirmed by on-line material such as the Chris Tame obits, and other material certainly appears to exist as in the Google Books search. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2010 (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.