Talk:Anti Common Market and Free Trade Party

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{[citation needed]} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]