Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Movement (Italy) (2nd nomination)

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. Delete and redirect to International Alliance of Libertarian Parties. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Movement (Italy)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Article that was incredibly saved 12 years ago. The article (very accurate but blatantly promotional) is about a party which definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources cited in the article come exclusively from the website of the party itself, while on the web I have not found anything relevant, if not two or three mentions at the most. The page was created by a blocked user (Lib3rtarian) who exclusively edited this page, so probably a person very close to the party. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A party or a political organisation can be encyclopedic even if it does not participate in elections. This subject, a political party active since 2005 and Italy's member of the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties, is evidently encyclopedic. No matter its original author, several valuable users have contributed to the article, which is well sourced and well written. AfDs are often decided inconsistently and by very few users, thus outcomes can be very surprising and against the grain, but I really cannot understand how such a subject can be proposed for deletion, let alone deleted. --Checco (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: It seems to me that you cannot understand how any (irrelevant) article can be deleted, not just this one. About this page, there is not a single source (and I repeat, not even one) that is not a first party source. Where are the third-party sources, indispensable for any article to stay on Wikipedia? I don't see them, but maybe you can show them to me. The few other news cited in the article do not even mention this party. The mere membership of an International organization certainly does not confer automatic relevance to a party of which no third party source speaks. This is a completely self-referencing page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Alliance of Libertarian Parties, article is currently referenced to a mix of primary sources and clearly unreliable sources, and I could find nothing better from a search. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not clear to me that this was ever a political party, that is a party that received significant votes. It is not listed on either the EN or IT lists of Italian Political Parties. The only third-party sources on the page are dead links, unfortunately, and the majority of the links are to the movement's own web page. I think we do best to stick to the parties listed on the Italian pages, and hope that those will be keep current. I also want to note that I find it odd to have pages here with informal translations of the names of the groups - there is no way that one would know what to look for when named persons or groups do not have themselves an English-language equivalent. I don't know how to do that better, but some of the names may not be ones people would look under. If nothing else, a reference from the native name to the English translation should exist, no? Lamona (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it is a member of IALP Braganza (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to the subject's own website, the subject identifies itself as a cultural associationand an [anti]politic subject, ...working to the spreading of the libertarian culture in Italy... (mine translation). Definitely it is not a political party: writing an article as if it were a political party is WP:OR as minimum. P1221 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – What a political party says of itself is not a third-party source (for instance, the Five Star Movement says that it is not a party, but it is exactly that). The Libertarian Movement is the Italian member of IALP, thus it is obviously a party. However, a subject can be encyclopedic also if it is not a party, otherwise political associations, factions, think tanks and so on could not have a place in Wikipedia, which is not the case. This longstanding outfit (call it as you want) deserves an article. --Checco (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checco Regardless of what type of corporate entity or organization it is, there needs to be some number of significant third-party sources for it to stand as a wikipedia article. Belonging to IALP has no affect on WP:N. So if you can find sources please cite them here, or add them to the article. I found some mentions in La Repubblica and one possible good source but that requires a subscription. Corriere wouldn't let me search it as a phrase so I got too many false hits. Are there other places to look for sources? Lamona (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just read the first deletion nomination and it has very good information - better than what we've added here - so I highly recommend looking at that. There is some well-done analysis of sources and of references in the article. It's from 2010 so the article has changed, but most of the analysis there seems also relevant to what we see today. Lamona (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found some references on the internet (not many), surely, if kept, the page would need a radical arrangement of the sources (in the article currently are almost all first-party sources.).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I was going to close this discussion but there are recent comments about finding more sources to support this group's notability so obviously the discussion is still continuing up til today. Of course, relisting doesn't prevent any admin from closing this discussion at any point in the next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After checking and doing some searches of my own, I see no evidence that this organization has significant coverage in RS. Despite extensive discussion, it hasn't been shown to meet GNG much less the rigorous standard expected at WP:NCORP. (t · c) buidhe 06:48, 29 September 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.