Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarians for Life

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 keep. Consensus does not favor a strict interpretation of the GNG in this case. lifebaka++ 11:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarians for Life

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

Non-notable; the third-party sources cited are either trivial mentions of the group or do not mention it at all, couldn't find any better sources by searching. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I couldn't find other sources either. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are certainly a real group and in the 1980s were quite important (for example they had Ron Paul involved with them when he was their VP candidate. They have had other supporters as well, although they don't seem to be as active now. They really seem to have suffered in Wikipedia terms for the fact that they were mostly active before the Internet really took off, although I do remember reading about them in Liberty in the late 1980s and early 1990s. JASpencer (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help find sources on them, then? Being a "real group" doesn't make them suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:EXISTENCE), nor does their association with notable people (WP:INHERITED), but if you can find sources on the group, that could prove that they are notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible bars for the inclusion of coverage of political parties and their youth sections in Wikipedia without regard to their ideology. Libertarians for Life is an organized pressure group within the Libertarian Party and has been engaged for about 35 years. The group has been responsible for editing a special issue of the International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. The Ron Paul movement looms large in American politics and, contrary to an argument made above, there is as case to be made awarding "bonus notability points" for a group's connection to an influential and historically noteworthy individual such as that Texas obstetrician. This is the sort of information that students will seek in the course of their research and it makes no sense to apply a stringent interpretation of notability guidelines in this specific case. Admittedly, sourcing leaves something to be desired; however, a cursory google search for the specific phrase "Libertarians for Life" returns a rather staggering 137,000 responses, indicating that this organization has more than coffee klatch status... Flag for better sources if you must, but deletion strikes me as ill advised and altogether draconian given the historical significance of the organization, its potential interest to Wikipedia users, and the fair quality of the page in question. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help find sources on them, then? You cite their historical significance, but this is not attested by any sources (note also WP:GHITS and that these hits are almost entirely from blogs and anti-abortion sites, rather than reliable sources). If any actual quality sources are found, I will withdraw. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Carrite, and the subject matter is notable enough to be useful, verifiable information --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 23:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Google books, Google news archives, and Google scolar. There are quite a few reliable sources listed there. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already said that I "couldn't find any better sources by searching," so your helpful suggestion of "search" is a bit useless. These are trivial mentions that do not satisfy WP:ORG (ie. mentioning the group in a big list of "pro-life" organizations). If there is a specific source that you have found, could you link it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mostly along the lines of Carrite's reasoning. There is sufficient coverage out there about this group to show notability, putting it beyond the vanity-political-party articles which get sent to AfD sometimes.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link some of this "sufficient coverage," then? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Carrite. - Haymaker (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link some of these sources which Carrite claims exist? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was also familiar with these guys back in the 80s and my own feeling is that they are notable. However, my own google news search only shows trivial mentions (ie mentions of various "Foo For Life" type organizations) so I won't bold anything. If there's coverage then it's going to be in offline archives of dead tree publications. I also suspect that may they have coverage in various college newspapers. I was also asked to comment on the non-admin closure attempt. When I started doing NACs back in 2008 I probably would have punched this "keep" but in my more experienced days I probably would have left this for an admin to close. However, in this case, Alpha-quadrant's close should not have been reverted by the nominator. (or any other involved party) The proper thing to do is to first ask the closer to revert his own close and/or ask a neutral admin to review the close.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do that if it should happen again on another AfD. Thanks. (As for sources, do you think it might be worth a resource request? Maybe someone has these old libertarian publications...) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Libertarian perspectives on abortion, the lack of significant non-trivial coverage precludes a stand-alone article. J04n(talk page) 17:35, 14 March 2011 (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.