Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)
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
— user:czar, 02:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:SIGCOV||WP:AFDEQ (Wikipedia:Notability)