Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Party (United States)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Pirate Party (United States)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

nn. No one stood for election from this party, it is not even registered. F (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There's no requirement for political parties to be registered or even to have members run for election in order to exist or be notable. I don't know if it meets WP:ORG or not but that might be a way to decide whether or not it is notable and verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wrote this article, and I believe it passes WP:N and WP:ORG. Significant coverage in Wired Magazine, Ars Technica, Variety and ZDNet are considered WP:RS. In addition, not all political parties are required to nominate their own candidate. If you take a look at List of political parties in the United States, you'll see dozens of examples of political parties that have articles, but have not nominated their own candidates (NOTE: This is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, i'm just showing that parties in the US are not required to nominate their own people. The PPUS endorsed Obama in 2008. Firestorm  Talk 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of substantial coverage in reliabel sources. Here is one example . ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Comment That's about the Swedish one. The US one is only mentioned in passing. F (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. I concede your point. Although the parties are related are they not?  So if the main article subject is notable than a merge or at the very least a redirect would seem to me superior to deletion. But it seems the U.S. branch is notable in and of itself based on the findings of others. Have a nice weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It has a few references as an attempted political party rather than a legitimate and active party. The entry reflects that this is merely an attempt and all efforts to become officially registered have failed. This is one of those nominally notable groups. For example, it is not proper to list this in a list of active political parties. It should not be considered a notable political party, but is a notable attempt due to the few references.Aardvark31 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment However, the reference posed by ChildofMidnight may be considered incidental or trivial coverage. I still contend that it be limited as mentioned above until it does something more notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardvark31 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- The sources there indicate notability, not much else to say. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

""nn. No one stood for election from this party,..."
 * Keep - One of the major premises of the nomination for deletion:
 * is incorrect. James Hill was on the General Election ballot in 2006 for US Representative from the first District of Iowa representing the Pirate Party and received 2201 votes (1.06%) . I do not know if he had the endorsement of the party establishment. Justus R (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * He didn't. The Party organisation wasn't formed until after the deadline for ballots. The first official Pirate Party Candidate will be Stephen Collings running for US rep of Tennessee's 5th District. 67.34.2.52 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As it is a group with ongoing attempts to gain ballot recognition in states, it will become a party at some point soon. Also, it's officially listed with the IRS as existing (national political parties don't actually exist in the Us, usually they're 527s or similar instead). Political parties are state-level and below. 67.34.2.52 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.