Deletion of Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)

Comment: Wikipedia does not keep an article on the basis of the subject impact alone but on the basis of |notability. The fact that the subject of the article is a minor party, may not provide valid criteria for an AfD nomination. However, |reliable sourcing is the most important factor for AfD nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: The party is small, insignificant, relatively new, and has no real coverage in sources.  Of the sources in the article, all but one are  establsihing only that the party has stood candidates.  The bar for being allowed to stand in British elections is set very low (£500 + 10 signatures) so there is no way that having candidates can be considered notable in itself.  The remaining source is an interview with Ian Parker-Joseph, the party leader, in Politics.co.uk.  Interviews are generally considered to be  and, by themselves, cannot establish notability.  The ''Telegraph'' piece mentioned above is an editorial rant advising voters not to support small parties.  It says nothing encyclopaedically useful about the party itself and it is telling that the piece has not been used as a source for any fact in our article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: I'd close this, but I think I'd save any potential upset by instead adding to consensus. Read through all the arguments here, and RK's summary is on point. The main defense of this article topic is that (1) it is a registered political party, which is not a content-specific guideline, and (2) it has continually returned to AfD. These policy-less arguments do little for consensus, which as RK said, is about |general notability arguments |in the absence of a content-specific guideline. There were a few |vague waves to the GNG/|significant coverage, but no discussion about how it actually fulfilled this or what those sources were. And the only two sources that anyone considers substantial in this discussion were previously discussed as such in past AfDs and subsequently (and I'd say accurately) analyzed by Spinningspark. So what can I add? I did a mega-search of 55 ProQuest databases and found nada for sigcov. (Though I did get a laugh out of the LPUK search, where "Lucid Optical Services and Laser Physics UK" and "Little People UK" were far more popular than the Lib Party.) AfD's motto is "show me the sources". The pile-on keeps for similar articles at AfD (mentioned above) do us a disservice, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Common Good (political party)|as I have already said. So, all in all, another reminder that WP consensus is judged by the strength of policy-backed rationales and |not head count. czar&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:SIGCOV||WP:AFDEQ)

Comment: this and all similar political party articles on the basis of  (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)