Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT+ Liberal Democrats

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. Sandstein summed this up as well as anything I could say. SpinningSpark 23:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT+ Liberal Democrats[edit]

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

I have nominated this article for deletion because it seems non-notable. There is lack of interest from third-party sources. 86.158.182.11 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh666 07:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – like the Sarah Brown AfD, I should point out a conflict of interest; I am a member of the group up for deletion. However, the group is directly notable on two occasions, both relating to anti-LGBT censorship: [1][2]. The group is also notable for proposing an equal marriage to the party in the first place, which eventually became government policy and then legislation. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News search reveals LGBTory (116) and LGBT Labour (136) are not gaining significantly more coverage than LGBT+ Liberal Democrats (75). Deleting the pages of all LGBT groups for major parties in the UK doesn't seem like the sort of thing Wikipedia would want to do. ~Excesses~ (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for deleting these articles too, then, not for retaining this one, see WP:WAX. Sandstein 09:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 21:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. BenLinus 1214^talk 01:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article appears to fail WP:NOTABILITY, and lacks multiple independent sources. As for Excesses, you haven't made an argument you've just stated that it "doesn't seem like the sort of thing Wikipedia would want to do." I'd appreciate if you could cite a policy, guideline or essay as to why you think the article should be kept. Thanks, Pishcal — ♣ 02:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:GNG - even after two weeks of AfD there is no third-party source cited in the article itself. The two short articles linked to by Sceptre are a bit borderline, they are about minor controversies or incidents in which the group was involved, and not the sort of coverage on which we could build an article about the group itself. If better sources can be found, such as third-party coverage about who they are and what their goals are, there'd be a much better case for retaining the article. Sandstein 09:19, 31 December 2014 (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.