Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Party of the United Kingdom

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. Deville (Talk) 01:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party of the United Kingdom[edit]

Unregistered single issue political group. While some other Pirate Parties are registered, this one is not - it's just a group of people giving interviews, and is not officially registered with the authorities. At minimum, therefore, the name is misleading. It also has minimal press coverage - the party leader has given a few quotes to newspapers, but the party itself has not had a non-trivial mention anywhere I can find. I should also note that they don't even have a manifesto yet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pirate Party#International due to lack of notability. The only secondary source I could find was this one and it's just a trivial mention. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While PPUK is not registered at the moment, registration is ongoing and it will be registered around the end of this month; if non-registration is the criterion for deleting this article, does it really make sense to delete this article and then re-instate it a fortnight later? As to not finding a manifesto, did you not look here or here? -- Cabalamat (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see "IMPORTANT, this is a very rough draft and should not be treated as an official manifesto.", and from the main page, "Top of the list is that we’re starting to create the policy working groups that will [...] write our manifesto." Hence, manifesto is two months away from a final draft. Regardless, the criterion is really at WP:N, which this doesn't meet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pirate Party. A google search shows it doesn't appear to be notable - no non-trivial mentions in any independent third party source. When they do appear, by all means recreate the article. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect or Merge. No way is a political party that was formed two months ago and received no attention from the press notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Even if the party does register with the Electoral Commission it still doesn't mean that it will become notable, as any two people can who are prepared to stump up £150 between them can do so[1]. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone searches for this, why not redirect to an article that mentions them instead of a useless "not found" error? So far their only claim to fame is involvement with a large international party. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The party will be registered shortly. Elections for Party Officials have been held and the manifesto is alomst complete. It makes no sence to delete this article to then recreate it in several weeks. The Pirate Party forums and website are far more active than some UK Political Parties that also have wikipedia pages such as A BEE C--Tancred (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Party registration information doesn't go into depth, and their manifesto would be a primary source. Neither of those will change whether or not this article meets WP:N. What we really need is some sort of news story or book or something, and we can't know for sure whether or not any of those will happen any time soon. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say What we really need is some sort of news story or book or something, and we can't know for sure whether or not any of those will happen any time soon. Indeed we can't, not for certain. For all we know, the world might be destroyed by an asteroid tomorrow. The intention of PPUK is to hold a publicity/membership drive once we are formally registered (around the end of this month). We expect that this will result in news stories about us in the national press (I am PPUK's Campaigns Officer). This is a reasonable expection, IMO, because PP internationally has 1 or 2 MEPs (from Sweden; one after Lisbon is ratified) and one MP (in Germany). The international Pirate movement clearly is notable, and PPUK is part of that. But if the PPUK article must be deleted and then recreated a few weeks later, I suppose we'll have to go along with that, even though it is a waste of time. --Cabalamat (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, deleting the article would be a waste of time. That's why I'm suggesting that we temporarily hide the article under a redirect so we don't break any rules (WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL, etc) and then restore it when more sources become available. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:22, 14 July 2009 (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.