Talk:Anti Common Market and Free Trade Party

Notability

What is the notability issue here? The party stood in eight by-elections over 21 years. I'll take the notability tag off the main page but please feel free to reinstate it if you can give reasons on the talk page. JASpencer (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for reply. The article fails to cite any reliable sources, and a preliminary query produces no obviously reliable sources sources either. My gut feeling is it probably meets notability guidelines, that's why I didn't nominate it for deletion. Tagging it allows other editors to contribute reliable sources and improve the article. It is not a badge of shame, simply an alert to others viewing the page. I don't want to get in an edit war so I'll leave it up to you to replace the tag. Chris Moore (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't a template around the lack of sources be more appropriate. Although certainly a minor party (towards the end, very minor) they are going to be notable just for the amount of by-elections they fought. I just don't think notability is an appropriate tag. JASpencer (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I agree that notability isn't the best tag for it. Just not familiar with a tag that says "hey, this needs citation" other than inline and since there are no reliable sources on the page at all where would you start with inline tags? {{Unreferenced}} isn't appropriate because there is one reference, it's just not a reliable one. Perhaps {{Refimprove}}? Chris Moore (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Then again it is a stub, so it may be redundant. My concern is that it's been a stub for more than 3 years without significant improvement. Chris Moore (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)