Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Party Wales


 * 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. Deor (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Pirate Party Wales

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This organization has been founded three weeks ago and my online research has not found one single source that could support its notability. The references added to the article do not help to establish notability because they point to: Searching on the web, there is no sign of "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" and the article topic fully fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG and WP:BRANCH as well. ► LowLevel (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * An official Facebook page
 * A forum thread started by a user who has the same Wikipedia username of the creator of the article
 * An unrelated search result page
 * An article in which both the party and its leader are not mentioned
 * Another forum post by a user who has the same Wikipedia username of the creator of the article
 * A CNN page that doesn't mention the party nor its leader
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  03:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  03:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little stuck here as I have included more citations than other parties such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Communist_Party - which has zero citations

and:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_Wales - Which only citations to a specific "wales" socialist party are on their own website, exactly like Pirate Party Wales.

Yet these parties do not have any such deletion requests.

I'm puzzled as to how these pages survive yet Pirate Party Wales has been put in for deletion. Drowz0r (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. This isn't a meaningful party and it has no support as mentioned in the article. I considered this for speedy delete but I'm not sure. I think a redirect to the UK party is a credible option. Szzuk (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a brand new party and there has been no significant coverage of it in independent reliable sources. I do not object to a redirect to the UK party article. Just because we have poorly referenced articles about other Welsh political parties does not mean that we should keep an article about a new, as yet non-notable Welsh political party, . Those other parties have existed for many years, have contested elections, and it is highly likely that those articles could be improved if an editor with motivation and knowledge took on the task. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you tell me what kind of time frame is necessary before an article requires no citations and is left to be improved by an editor with necessary motivation? I tried to find references of those other parties in reputable cases but could not. Do we need to contest their deletion as well? I also had a similar page on a candidate for the Greens who did run in and contest elections and had media coverage but that was also deleted which had miles more citations than things such as the Socialists/Communist Parties mentioned above. I'm still no clearer as to why these pages are tagged for deletion unless there are hordes of pages, like those above, which also need to be discussed for deletion Drowz0r (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Cullen328 for now. Given the nature of the Pirate Party, I'm sure it'll meet the GNG eventually, but it seems like that time has not yet come.   @User:Drowz0r: You may wish to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which addresses part of the comment you made above.  – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems just about every guidance article I read comes completely at odds with things similar to Pirate Party Wales but none of those have been deleted or contested so I'm starting to question the enforcement or practicality of these guidance articles. From what I'm reading here if I tag all the smaller Party Pages I could find with a deletion tag, it would result in them being purged similar to the way Pirate Party Wales discussion is suggesting. That might be seen as your "all or nothing" reasoning but I don't see anything inherently wrong with that reasoning... but pointing out someone’s reasoning doesn't prove the article should stay nor does it it doesn't prove the article needs deletion either so while an interesting history of "stuff people say on wikipedia" I'm not sure it really does much by way of guiding us to a solution? I don't know what's wrong with it existing as a stub while more information is pooled, the update log of the page is rather long, clearly the article is growing.Drowz0r (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply (indent fixed, btw) - the point of that link was simply that because there is no curator here at Wikipedia, the fact that other articles exist doesn't mean that they either should or shouldn't exist. It could be that they are appropriate or simply that no one has noticed them yet.  I know that makes things a bit harder, but ... it's the way things go, I guess.  If you really want to make a good argument for keeping the article, though, you could reply to Curren328's !vote above, as it goes to the core of the reasons the article is up for deletion. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me (still learning - look Mom I'm indenting all by myself!) - Yeah replied to that, fixed the indentation on it too - easier to read now. Drowz0r (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: No notability, no reliable sources, no article. As far as other articles that don't have sources go, Drowz0r, if you know of any, feel free to nominate those for deletion too. I know you're wanting to save the article, but right now, you can't.  Sorry 'bout that.  Nha Trang  Allons! 22:57, 28 November 2014 (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.