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 of the debate was delete. Petros471 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party of the United States[edit]

Sigh. I was hoping it wouldn' come to this:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Can't find any serious American references. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed without comment by anon IP. Calton | Talk 06:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it, modifying it to show the current form of the party... a young start up barely off the ground. -AC

Message from the Pirate Party of the United States:
This article was NOT published by anyone who is affiliated with the Pirate Party of the United States. We believe that we are not yet established enough to warrent a wikipedia article. However, as most of you comment this is not some organization founded with no basis. Wired Mag. is currently working on a story and we have the full support of the Pirate Party of Sweeden. This article should be deleted at once, and in the future, when the organization is firmly established there should be an article made about it.
--
David Sigal
Chairman
Pirate Party USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewizrd (talk • contribs) 23:44, June 9, 2006

• Delete Zero google hits. This is a hoax and not even a funny one. Ace of Sevens 07:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I first read your comment I too got zero google hits when I googled it, but thought that due too its short history, google had perhaps not indexed since then (or whatever google does to find entries). I tried to google it a while later and got 608 hits. Martin Ulfvik 21:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a lot of results: [1] I think thaht the article must be keep.--157.88.70.159 09:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It was me who started the article after having seen the Pirate Party of the United States being mentioned on the frontpage of the Pirate Party. The Pirate Party is fyi the largest Swedish political party outside the parliament (memberwise) and is the fastest growing one (just so the legitimacy of the Pirate Party does not come into question due to its name). A discussion about the Pirate Party of the United States is also present on the forum of the Pirate Party. The party is also featured on Boing Boing at http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/07/us_branch_of_pirate_.html. It should also be noted that the Pirate Party of the United States was just recently created, on June 6, 2006. Martin Ulfvik 08:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were created two days ago, it could hardly be notable yet. Ace of Sevens 08:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons stated above. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 08:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from the talk page of the article:

Even though I am the founder of the Pirate Party of the United States, I can assure you that it was not me who originally wrote the Wikipedia entry for it, but rather a member of the original Piratpartiet. This site is not a joke. It was featured on BoingBoint at http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/07/us_branch_of_pirate_.html, I've gotten 250+ emails from people expressing interest in joining, and Piratpariet chair Rickard Falkvinge called me this morning to express congratulations and interest in working closely with us. Again, this is not a joke - this party is for real and growing fast! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.55.82 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 8 June 2006

• You got 250 e-mails? Son, 250 bonafide votes wouldn't get you a seat on the Athens City Council. --Calton | Talk 10:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability first, article later. And no, getting onto boingboing doesn't count. -- GWO
• Delete, per GWO. - Motor (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but damn, this is better than Yippies. Can you imagine the campaign slogans? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure "Steal This Book", "Steal the Soundtrack to This Book", "Steal the Movie of This Book", "Steal the Ebook Novelisation of the Movie of This Book"... -- GWO
• Keep. The elitist judgements being passed by certain people here really sicken me. TruthCrusader 13:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on your track record, I'm thinking it's the noun and not the adjective of "elitist judgements" that's giving you trouble. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ouch, good one. Incidentally, the use of the word "elitist" is AfD's corollary to Godwin's Law. -- Docether 18:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this page. Currently it it the *only* source of information available. I can only presume this page has been targeted for deletion because of political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.172.211 (talk • contribs) 13:54 8 June 2006
  • Uh, you realize that if this is the "*only* source of information available", then by definition it's original research and doesn't belong here? Perhaps you want to rethink that argument. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per what the founder of the party says himself: it is the only source of information available. WP:NOR —Mets501^talk 15:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Founded two days ago? Eesh... Wickethewok 15:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "the only source of information available"? Good grief. I only half-jokingly call this a vanity page. Seriously, nn at least. I note they claim credibility because they talk about it themselves. Tychocat 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Of course this deserves an own article! /Slarre 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - i tend to think that you should only delete an article if it is a piece of crap or about a subject which can't be expanded. and this one isn't one of them. THE KING 18:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no. You should only delete an article if it meets the policy for deletion. -- Docether 18:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, currently nonnotable and original research, per Calton's comment. Best, Docether 18:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. — Haeleth Talk 18:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable if it's two days old. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment there is a pirate party in sweeden, but cant find anything about it being in the US. http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7185.cfm antmoney85
• Delete per User:71.108.172.211. (I know he said keep...) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I myself have taken notable interest over this article since its founding (yeah, I know 2 days ago so try adding that) and it has received over 1500 diggs. I know you "deleteists" (now that's the type of word applying to Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day) will say "Who cares about diggs", but still this is in no way, shape or form the type of article that should be deleted. Besides, even though the USA has a large bandwidth issue its not like Wikipedia has a severe storage space issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwbarat@gmail.com (talk • contribs) 20:54 8 June 2006
  • Apparently you prefer we have a severe credibility problem instead, which is the logical outcome of pretending things made up in school one day are the least bit encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • That is just ridiculous! Until you show us a letter from Jimmy Wales or Richard Stallman, my hero, explaining that Wikipedia is so tight for storage space that they feel this 3K text document is the straw that's breaking the camels back, then you have no reason to delete this article. Besides, Wikipedia is about free information and the right to know, so am I being forced to aruge for my write to view this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwbarat@gmail.com (talk • contribs) 00:25, June 9, 2006
      • That's right! Aruge for your writes! Let's tell off all those people who want to delete this because they say it takes up too much space! Let's let them know...uh, wait, where are those people making that argument? Did they wander off to a different page? <Looks under carpet> Nope, not there. Let us when you find them and then we'll all give them what for! --Calton | Talk 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The link to the parties site doesn't even work yet. --Darkstar949 21:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't know what's this supposed to be, but 'www.pirate-party.us' is apparently down and just represents advertisement of it's hosting company 'Doteasy'. Now you can get various information about Canada there oO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.77.100 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 June 2006
• Arrrr!, or is that Delete. Set up chapters in each of the 50 states, run a serious slate of candidates, then you get an article. Not before. KleenupKrew 23:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to counteract global warming Flying Spaghetti Monster#PiratesDelete and forget about global warming. Ted 00:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Brand new parties have to actually establish themselves before they get an article. Fan1967 01:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at this stage. 600 Google hits most from blogs

[2]. No Google News results indicates a problem with verifiability at this stage. When this party registers and starts running candidates for office, an article on them would be warranted. It isn't appropriate at this stage. Capitalistroadster 02:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Establish thyself and nominate some candidates to run. Frankchn 02:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I thought the Pensioners' Party was nn. <sigh> Eluchil404 11:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Whosasking
• Delete. While I'm tickled pink at the idea, they have no notability thus far other than sharing a name with the Swedish version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguerriero (talk • contribs) 18:47, 9 June 2006
• Delete, per the many reasons above. PJM 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a Political Party is not just for gaining seats on a board or anything, but a political party can also be to bring an issue to the forefront and show others that it is popular and that change is necessary. This isn't a hoax, and this is gaining speed, especially since it is endorsed by the original Pirate Party, and even moreso since the Pirate Bay raid. If it's not here now it'll be here later. Phae 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whether it "is gaining speed" is irrelevant. It does not meet standards for inclusion now. It is certainly possible that it may later, but, per the famous crystal ball policy, Wikipedia does not anticipate or predict. Fan1967 00:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Pirate Party of Sweden. Given that this entity is has less members and is less notable than my neighbors wine tasting club, its only claim to relevance is its resemblance and possible association with the legitimately notable Pirate Party of Sweden. Surely this entire article could be replaced by one line on that page. Kershner 06:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for now, because the name of the article Pirate Party implies every Pirate Party in the world, and right now a well-sourced article about all the Pirate parties would be well under 32kb. Ashibaka tock 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the Party is bound to gain exposure, and so there is no reason to delete the article now only to have someone recreate it later. Joffeloff 00:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but "is bound to"? Wikipedia? Not a crystal ball. --Calton | Talk 01:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Just because the party/organization is new, doesn't mean it shouldn't be kept in Wikipedia. Was the Swedish Pirate Party deleted? No, but it indeed was put through the grueling Articles for Deletion process and was decided to be kept; hopefully the same attitude is upheld for this one. Mike 08:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pirate Party of Sweden had media coverage and had run candidates. The same attitutude could lead to the US page being delete. On secodn thought, this shoudl be merged to Pirate Party, though and split back off if they manage to establish themselves. Ace of Sevens 09:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe platform is raising serious issues of public policy that are not being addressed by other parties.M dorothy 14:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a place to 'raise serious issues of public policy'. It is an encyclopedia. A political party that has not yet filed for existence in any state, has run zero candidates and has no media coverage is not encyclopedic. It may be one day, but right now it is merely an attempt to use Wikipedia as a political springboard. Kershner 15:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Pirate Party, this doesn't deserve its own article just yet. The Pirate Party movement (outside of Sweden) does seem notable however and putting that information on the main Pirate Party article seems like the most prudent thing to do. Paul^C/_T+ 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Pirate Party until such time as the American chapter has done something notable on its own, at which point the article should be recreated with the new, notable information. Until the American chapter has done something independantly notable, it's basically just a footnote of the Swedish version. Fieari 19:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into pirate party of sweeden, if it grows give it a sub article... --T-rex 19:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, I know, it is not yet a registered party, it hasn't yet been in an election, etc etc etc. The thing is, in 2 or 4 or 10 years, when(or if) this is a notable party and people do come to Wikipedia to read about it, I'm sure many of them, like me, will go back and see what the earliest revision is so we can watch how it developed in intimate detail. Wikipedia's strength, in my mind. is more than just its ability to update quickly and that it only has to pay minimal attention to bandwith/storage space, but rather it's ability to preserve each revision of the article in it's entirety, thus proving to be a researcher's dream in watching the development of ideas, and, yes, politics. Is this article detrimentally affecting Wikipedia's credibility or functionality? No. On the other hand, if we choose to delete the article, do we risk denying people what they come to wikipedia for, namely, information? Absolutely. --AK7 00:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the content must therefore by notable and encyclopedic at the time of articles creation. Your 'Keep' clearly articulates why this article does not belong in Wikipedia yet. Kershner 00:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've written a few responses but I'm having trouble explaining my views... basically what I'm trying to say is, first, Wikipedia loses little by keeping. Second, whlie we can only claim to be an encyclopedia, we are made into much more by our circumstances: we are a source of information, and I suppose one could say of "meta-information." We store not just a review and summary of the ideas that shape our world, but also how those ideas are formed and shaped, inasmuch as they have been in the years wikipedia has been around. Third, we should be concious of helping along future researchers. I'm well aware it's against policy to keep an article on the off-chance it could become notable, but the very-early revision histories would be a gold mine for future researchers, and the losses from it are infintesmally small. What do we lose by keeping around the article for 6 months (or 1 month) and seeing what comes of it? On the other hand, what do we potentially gain?
    • I should note that this is more of a general argument. I'm not saying that the revisions I see in this article's history are clearly going to be used for the historybooks a hundred years from now. I am saying that we don't yet know what information will or will not be useful a month, a year or a generation from now... so why not just leave it and let them sort it out? Have you ever heard a historian complain of too much information, too much documentation? The problem is almost invariably the loss of information.--AK7 02:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't know for sure... but wouldn't a merge and redirect effectively get rid of the article, but still preserve the history for "future researchers to drool over"? Paul^C/_T+ 06:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment AK7, The simple answer is "because that's the way it is." You are making a sound and coherent argument about the purpose of Wikipedia. To be honest, in many ways I agree with your contention. In spite of this, the topic was fully hashed out to a different conclusion long before either of us arrived on Wikipedia's steps. Wikipedia has a clear mandate about what it is and what it isn't. And it is an encyclopedia (and this topic isn't encyclopedic) and it isn't a crystal ball. Kershner 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't contest that there are a million policies that were decided long before we got into WP, but policy should enable us to keep useful information and delete the rest- not force us to say "well that's the way it is" and delete something that we (or just myself?) think is going to just be recreated before long (and that time, rightly so). I don't have any illusions of these people actually getting anyone on a ballot, let alone in office, but simply presenting a public face counter to the **AA's would make them notable- and every indication is that this is what will be happening in the next weeks and months. I do, however, get the feeling I'm pretty much alone in thinking this way, so if the consensus is on the other side, then that's where it is... --AK7 18:53, 16 June 2006 (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.