Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transhumanist Party

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 redirect to Zoltan Istvan#Political career. Ignoring the puppetry, there is near unanimous consensus that this does not belong in the main article space. Opinion is split on whether it should be deleted outright, moved to draft space, redirected or merged. The suggestion of a logical redirect target came up late in the debate; I suspect if it had been suggested earlier, many of the delete !votes would have been for redirect instead, so that's what I'm calling this. The existing article history is still available beneath the redirect, so if anybody wants to selectively merge material, they can still do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Transhumanist Party

Transhumanist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable future party apparently based solely on its founder's intended 2016 U.S. presidential run. 3 of the 4 references in the article are by the party's founder and a quick Google and Google News search fail to show the significant coverage in reliable sources required by the WP:GNG. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

An exact search of the phrase, using a closed quotation Google search, "Transhumanist Party" gives over 9,000 hits, and a search without quotations gives over 117,000 results. The formation of a Transhumanist Party is only one month old, and it has already generated this much media buzz, so clearly it is notable. Another thing that makes it notable is its connection to the futurist and transhumanist political movement. There are many political viewpoints within these groups, and the Transhumanist Party is an umbrella for all of them. Waters.Justin (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this article is notable, but if the Wiki volunteers disagree then my request is to change the name of this article to "Transhumanist_politics." That is a much broader subject and it will encompass even more notable opinions and movements. Thank you, Waters.Justin (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T DELETE THE TRANSHUMANIST PARTY PAGE: There are "now" 29 original references to Transhumanist Party on the Wikipedia page, including from major independent sources such as Extreme Tech and Wired. Additionally, I know that approximately an additional 6 new interviews, television shows, and articles are scheduled to appear in the next 2-14 days, some in major media, such as Kurzweil AI, Vice Motherboard, and Jewish Life Network Television, etc. Istvan expects dozens of media stories over the next few months to appear on the Transhumanist Party as the campaign gets going full speed. Already, the Transhumanist Party has been covered in numerous languages too. The Transhumanist Party is sure to grow quickly, and will also likely be covered broadly in media this weekend on November 15th when Istvan publicly debates celebrity philosopher John Zerzan at Stanford University. Thanks for your patience and consideration regarding the newness of the Transhumanist Party page. Additionally, Transhumanist Party website should be fully functional with staff listed in 14-28 days. Mikegeraton 11/10/14 1:41AM

"Sure to grow quickly" is part of the problem. Basically, it is WP:TOOSOON to know whether the party will become notable and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Philosopher, You bring up an understandable point, however one important issue at hand is not only whether this political party will grow, but also what impact it will have on politics and major media coverage of politics. It's presidential candidate deals with major media almost everyday, and he has about 30,000 social media followers. The Transhumanist Party is already doing about 2 to 3 interviews a week. Many of those are in very well known and established media, and it's likely the coverage of the Transhumanist Party will continue to sharply rise as its rallies, projects, and events get underway. I hope you will consider some of these factors in letting the page remain. Within one to two weeks we expect the amount of original coverage and references on the Transhumanist Party to double, but more likely triple. Some of it will certainly be critical, yet it will certainly be noteworthy. I believe this would qualify as being a useful Wikipedia page. Thanks for your consideration. Mikegeraton 11/11/14 6:42PM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikegeraton (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Mikegeraton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• INCUBATE, subject has received some significant coverage in non-primary or secondary reliable sources, such as in news, but one is a blog written by the founder at HuffPo, and the other is an interview with said founder. Therefore, it is debatable whether the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources sufficient to meet notability as defined by WP:GNG at this time. Therefore it is my opinion that this article should incubated to a draft page under the primary author/editor of this article, and after work is done and a period of time has passed, submit it for review.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete for now, possibly with moving to some incubation space or draft space, to be developed if/when the party gets going. :) So far, what is in the article is just about Zoltan Istvan and his views, and there is no evidence of any "party", of anyone else being involved at all, much less a political party that is capable of getting a candidate onto ballots in any U.S. state at all. Changing to "transhumanist politics" wouldn't help; there is no evidence here yet that there is any involvement of transhumanist ideas in politics anywhere, in any real way. It's just wp:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. Note to article creator(s): there are major U.S. political parties whose state organizations are significant yet which lack state-level Wikipedia articles. Perhaps {{Democratic Party (United States)}} has 50 separate state-level party articles, but Conservatives and others do not, because there is not enough evidence of notability for many of their state organizations, all actually existing as real entities while Transhumanist Party has no real existence in terms of offices or funds or election participation at all, yet, i expect. State political parties have websites that work, and list lots of persons involved. http://www.transhumanistparty.org/ has links that just yield "something coming here soon" type messages. I participated in some AFDs in the last year or so that ended up deleting a bunch of the state-level party articles. For the Transhumanist Party to deserve a Wikipedia article, it has to get significant independent coverage. It is generally accepted that any national-level political party gets an article, however. For you, this could be established by Transhumanist Party actually getting onto the ballot in any one or two states. --doncram 00:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC
• Delete now, as it isn't notable enough yet, and most of the sources are blogs, not very notable or reputable, or are referencing each other. (and I would guess the overly long series in the first paragraph probably added to try and convince people not to delete the page) If the party becomes more notable in the future, the page can be recreated. Thunderstone99 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Userfy (or WP:DRAFTS), so interested editors may collaborate in building up article to meet inclusion criteria, upon which time they may submit ({{AFC submission}}) for review and inclusion into encyclopaedia. Filings with Federal Election Commission and gaining ballot access in any state would greatly improve assertions of notability but, we don't seem to have that just yet... -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• INCUBATE, It has already had more coverage than other supposedly acceptable and valid political parties around the world. I see very little chance that this won't get significant large publications' attention over the next 14 months. Ballot access is likely in at least a state which should suggest notability as Dsprc stated. Woodcutter631 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• INCUBATE Deleting this page would be, in itself, against the rules Wikipedia claims to adhere to. It has more than enough coverage by several different media webpages to be accepted - that includes both political and technology-based news sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.96.237 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 16 November 2014‎ (UTC)— 71.71.96.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• INCUBATE, Since the party is gaining more media attention each week there is no need to rush to delete it while it is in a clear growth phase. It is the only party of its kind right now and Wikipedia should have an entry, even if it is embryonic and growing as the party is gaining more coverage. One of the great values of Wikipedia is its ability to be on the cutting edge of events as they happen and to adapt quickly to emerging cultural developments. It doesn't make sense for Wikipedia to remove itself from the top search results of a new and unique political party. --Carmstrong1959 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)— Carmstrong1959 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment All these "Vote!s" for "Incubate" amount to agreeing that the article should be DELETED from mainspace. With almost any deleted article, it is fine to provide a copy to the original creator or anyone else, for them to have in their userspace or to put it into draftspace. Let's be clear though, this article is to be deleted from mainspace, i.e. from the Wikipedia in all major respect, and let's not muck around with interest in this non-party becoming a party because many people don't like the existing parties, or whatever soft other reasoning people might have.... To the eventual closer, you should be honest about this, please. --doncram 23:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Incubate per RightCowLeftCoast, and others advocating for that action. It is debatable whether or not the subject meets WP:GNG at the present time, but there is clearly potential for increased coverage in reliable sources in the coming weeks/months. The article should be restored to mainspace if and when that coverage materializes.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Speak for yourself, not others, @doncram. Incubate =/= Delete and "to provide a copy" is most assuredly not "fine" as that would break the edit history and attribution requirements (copyright and content licenses). Incubate is a move to the appropriate Namespace (which preserves Edit history), not wholesale removal (even Delete just hides content from view). You already made your case, let us not inject our opinions into the statements of others nor make assumptions of political allegiances, please. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Umm, well, a copy to userspace can include the edit history; I myself have numerous times requested and received copies of deleted articles including edit history. I absolutely did not mean to call for separation of edit history from any copy; I do consider it important to preserve edit history specifically for proper attribution in version potentially to be restored to mainspace. But I am also not familiar with "Incubate" being a type of vote in AFDs. And, the AFD decision is to delete from Wikipedia mainspace. Whether a copy with edit history is put somewhere else does not matter, IMHO; the proper language for the AFD decision is "delete". I hope this clears up some of your concern, Dsprc. --doncram 04:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@doncram I misunderstood; you are correct, there is strong consensus for not being live in mainspace. Incubate etc are listed in the lede of WP:AFD and as an outcome in WP:XFD. It means we move the page to user or draft space and out of mainspace. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, well i see the usage of word "incubate" at the two places you suggest. But the procedure for closing AFD's, per section Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed doesn't give "incubate" as a decision option: the closer is to "assess the discussion for consensus to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article" (emphasis in original). And in practice i do not see "Incubate" used as a decision outcome. And the AFD STATS tool which evaluates any editor's AFD "performance" does not include it as a decision outcome. So, @dsprc, I think you are advocating for a change in practice, not yet ratified in wp:AFD, in favor of "incubate" as an option. --doncram 14:01, 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 11:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete - Fails notability guides, as noted by others; blogs aren't sources. "Incubate" is not a valid result for an XfD, we either keep articles or delete them. If an individual wishes to have a deleted article userfied, then they may make that request to any admin after the fact. Deleted articles do not automatically drop down to some sort of draft/incubation state pending their final fate decision, this isn't Survivor with the Redemption Island twist. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Tarc, you are mistaken. Incubate/userfy/draft/redirect or whatever, are valid outcomes (some even preferred over others depending on topic). These methods are listed in the opening description of WP:AFD and 'other outcomes' in WP:XFD. One should probably be familiar with community norms and process before making uninformed claims about them (If you wish to change that process, the proper forum is WP:PUMP not here). -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't presume to lecture me on XfD norms, newbie. I stand by what I said, which you did not seem to understand. Tarc (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not call me a noob: WP:NPA. I understand perfectly; you want to waste everyones time at WP:DELREV despite it being the norm to userfy or draft. You really should read WP:INCUBATE, WP:AFD and WP:XFD. Barring that, you are free to stand on a foundation of sand all you want though... -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, note AFD stats tool reports show 8 deletion-related comments by Dsprc, 454 by me, and more than 500 (the max reportable) by Tarc. I commented above that "incubate" is not much of an option in practice, IMO. That said, I appreciate Dsprc's attempt here to support use of "incubate" as an option; perhaps it oughta be elevated; that is probably best discussed at Talk page of wp:AFD. --doncram 14:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My own thoughts are that incubation should (only) be done at the request of any editor willing to improve the article, but the current instructions do seem to imply that it can be voted on even if there is no editor willing to improve it. Certainly the references in the various places that User:Dsprc linked to should be improved to say which of those is, indeed, the case. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

*PLEASE KEEP THIS PAGE TOTALLY AVAILABLE ON WIKIPEIDA: I'm not really clear on the incubate or delete things on Wikipedia, but what I am certain of is how much media coverage the Transhumanist Party will have in the next month and how it will begin influencing other politics. There is already a major documentary project ($100K budget) in the works and a dozen large media sites interested in covering the party and its presidential candidate. You can expect in the next 2 weeks to begin seeing them, as they are already appearing often daily (and no, they're not just small sites with little traffic: Extreme Tech, Kurzweil AI, Huffington Post, Wired Germany, Vice Motherboard, etc). The party's candidate himself appears in dozens of articles every month, and many of them will begin addressing the Transhumanist Party. What's happening here on Wikipedia regarding this page is that there are people, including in the transhumanist, conspiracy, anarchist, and religious communities, who hate the Transhumanist Party and hate it's candidate. And they want to make sure this page gets deleted. The haters should look beyond their hate and should keep the page. but write their disagreement with the party on the page if that's how they feel. But to question whether it's worthy of existing is absurd. Istvan probably gets millions of views a month from his media exploits. And his main mission now is the Transhumanist Party. It's already established enough, but will soon become a well known party simply from the viewer numbers involving media. I don't really see how anyone, including the haters, can argue that this isn't a a worthwhile established page with some solid references. This page is very useful to the general public and therefore is a valuable page for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikegeraton (talk • contribs)

You already voted above. Tarc (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't think the sources available are enough for the subject to meet any of the relevant inclusion criteria. I don't have a strong objection to userfication/incubation and I can see that being a likely outcome of any DRV discussion subsequent to this AFD. We would need much better sourcing for this to make its way back to mainspace and proponents would probably need to go back through DRV anyway. Sending this to DRV twice is just painful. This has nothing to do with "haters" - I've never heard of them and I won't get to vote in that election anyway. There's a lot of WP:IDHT going on. Ironic given the subject matter. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - it fails WP:42. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

*Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The sources presently contained in the article do not satisfy WP:RS. Subject currently falls short of WP:GNG & WP:ORG. No prejudice against recreation in the event the relevant coverage predicted by User:Mikegeraton & others should come to fruition.--JayJasper (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete -- fails notability. If we were to include all recently created parties because they attract fringe media coverage, there would be hundreds of entries. Moonboy54 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong keep - encyclopaedias should be encyclopaedic, or else what's the point? The first U.S. transhumanist party is clearly notable. The entry is well-referenced. --Davidcpearce (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would agree that if there were a Transhumanist Party, that it would be notable. But there isn't...there is no formal party existing--no convention, no achievement of ballot status, no petition of thousands, perhaps even no other explicit individual's support of there being a party (besides Istvan's). What we have is notable mention by Istvan of his wish that there be a political party, which would be appropriate to include in Istvan's article. In my opinion, it undermines the meaning of language if Wikipedia has an article on a political party that does not exist... it is wp:TOOSOON. You might consider Wikipedia's practice on proposed future movies...we have policy not to create articles on them until principal filming has commenced (i think, or it is some similar clear milestone) or until there is clear wp:GNG about the movie itself. I hope this helps. --doncram 23:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Is the Transhumanist Party more or less notable than, say, the admirable 'Alex from Target'? Judgements of significance are inevitably subjective. If mainstream media coverage is a criterion of notability, then the Transhumanist Party makes the cut. But what is - and isn't - politically notable is itself a political issue.--Davidcpearce (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• I had not heard of Alex from Target but i see there is an article. Right, the Transhumanist Party is less notable. Alex from Target exists and there is wp:GNG substantially about the topic. There is no such thing as a Transhumanist Party, it does not exist. And there is not, as far as I can tell, any coverage substantially about the topic. Note meeting GNG includes requirement that there be "Significant coverage" which "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There is no coverage about the party, per se, because it does not exist. There's no coverage of a political convention, of donations, of anything. It doesn't exist! Hey, Davidcpearce, don't get me wrong, I appreciate that you and some others may be energized to be editing in Wikipedia by the idea of a transhumanist party to write about. I welcome you and hope you will contribute on other topics. I happen to believe that it is TOOSOON to cover a political party that ...does ... not...exist.... Hope this helps you understand where i am coming from. sincerely, --doncram 02:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• The Transhumanist Party is currently small; but that's different from its being a one-man-band. Why can't interested readers use Wikipedia to find out more about the party from (ideally!) a neutral point of view - just as you've found out more about 'Alex from Target'? A Criticisms / Controversies section is fine.--Davidcpearce (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it's just not what Wikipedia does; we're trying to be an encyclopedia about established topics, using mostly secondary and tertiary sources to reflect well-established knowledge, not to be cutting-edge. You want a free website to share enthusiasm/info about the next greatest thing coming in any field area, then you need to open a free blog, and to post Youtube videos, and so on, seriously. No offense intended; your trying with this is fine, but IMHO it is gonna be deleted and you should not take offense from that. I do hope you'll contribute on other topics, and on this topic itself if/when it becomes established in the future. --doncram 19:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well-established topics like 'Alex from Target'? Surely Wikipedia should embrace well-established traditional knowledge AND the topical and cutting-edge. We're not trying simply to mimic Encyclopaedia Britannica. --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, I know of three top 50 news sites (sites with millions of viewers a day) now newly doing stories on the Transhumanist Party (should be out in December), besides the fact that Vice permanently added the name Transhumanist Party to Istvan's byline today at the top of his column. I hope the people that want to delete this page will give it a few weeks to see how it develops.**— comment added by Mikegeraton (talk • contribs)

• Right, well, in a few weeks if there have been substantial developments, then it could be okay to propose a new article. I suggest you use the "Articles for Creation" process, see wp:AFC. This is ready to be closed, IMHO. --doncram 19:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Doncram, Digg released Istvan's latest article on its front page this morning, with a link directly to the party website in the very first sentence of the article. Digg is a very high ranked sites for news according to Alexa. And last night Yahoo! News Science put Istvan's Huff Post story up, which has links to Stanford mentioning of the Transhumanist Party. The Digg release is especially important, as it generates massive traffic. http://on.digg.com/1BTUcO6 It's currently on Digg's front page right now, which generates probably a million views a day, and it's about Istvan's policy on education. Hard to see how anyone can discount these types of high number views. --comment added by Mikegeraton. 11-22-14

That only reinforces doncram's position that the party doesn't exist yet. It is just Istvan. Is the party registered anywhere? Something like one of these: [1] California (dept state), [2] Florida (dept elections) or New York maybe?? Have they ever gained ballot access anywhere at all? Have they even attempted to do so yet? Who is their Treasurer, Secretary, etc? Or, are there none of these positions because it is just Istvan, and not a political organization at all? Another tell is the lack of a dedicated web resource. Right now, the domain is just a redirect to a subpage on Istvan's site and the domain is assigned to Istvan, and only registered on September 14th (with bogus registration data at that). -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I believe this has already been discussed. Infrastructure of the party, members, volunteers, filings, a proper website and everything else are underway. But as already mentioned, the party is only weeks old. Stuff like that takes time to do properly. But ultimately, the "only" important question is not if it fits your specific parameter of a political party, but whether it's notable as a political organization to the public and according to Wikipedia standards. There are probably dozens of organizations that considers themselves political and ideological on Wikipedia that have not had the widespread coverage that the Transhumanist Party has had, but have useful pages to the public on Wikipedia and are not threatened by haters for deletion. Comment added by Mikegeraton (talk • contribs)

• Keep, Don't Delete Sources provided to the Transhumanist Party's Wikipedia page are from valid independent sources. With more than enough number of independent sources to be considered trustworthy, ranging from Technology and political news sources such as Huntington Post, Extreme Tech, and Stanford University. The party has been gathering more coverage and attention each week, so the list of independent sources should continue to grow. Why can't we leave the page open to interested Wiki readers? The sources are listed below, if readers find any of the information questionable, they can always check up on the cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elitanna (talk • contribs) 23:14, 22 November 2014‎— Elitanna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Don't Delete Why do you think the page about the Transhumanist Party should be deleted??? Unfortunately, I am not an American citizen and therefore - can't vote for it. Still I find that party essential for the entire humanity as it promotes freedom, liberalism, technology for better minds, bodies and relations, anti ageism medicine and many more wonderful things!

To all the haters of the tranhumanist party you can say whatever you want but the number of people who support this party will continue to grow rapidly.

The page is of interest to many many people worldwide (including people like me who can't even vote for the Transhumanist Party)

Keep the page up!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.91.211 (talk • contribs) November 23, 2011

• Comment moved from the talk page by – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.}

• Don't Delete The rapid growth in awareness of the Transhumanist Party shows that something important is developing here, right? It has the very real chance of becoming an instrumental part of all of our futures. I would give it some more time. Keep it up until spring, revisit and then delete it if the growth hasn't continued.

• UPDATE I've already voted, but I just want to update those following this discussion. Yesterday somebody deleted half the articles and references of the Transhumanist Party page. However, the person was aiming to make it a better page, and many of the significant references were kept. That is fine, as I think everyone agrees the page should look good and fit Wikipedia standards. But I do want to point out that, in addition to those other 15 or so independent and original references that are no longer there, today, in the news, another major site that coverers independent political parties has written an original and full feature on the Transhumanist Party. It's a popular and reputable independent site. I have referenced it in the Transhumanist Party page. That article can be seen in many different sites now and also has been commented on and been responsible for creating other new articles on the Transhumanist Party. Basically, EVERY SINGLE DAY, new original stories are coming out on the Transhumanist Party (and there are many other major stories coming out in the next month that are already scheduled). It would be unreasonable to delete this page, given how much exposure the Transhumanist Party is attracting in the public. I believe it's time take the "consideration for deletion" section out and leave the Transhumanist Party page intact and up for the public. It can be re-considered for deletion in the future if something changes about the party later. Thanks. Comment added by Mikegeraton (talk • contribs)

• For what must be about the 10th time, we need significant coverage of the organisation enough for it to meet WP:ORGDEPTH before we have an article here. Despite the promises of more significant coverage, it always seems to be just beyond the horizon, simply reinforcing Wikipedia policy and the argument that this should be deleted, for now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Do non-notable topics receive coverage in the multiple mainstream media news outlets cited? Unlike genuinely non-notable trivia, the Transhumanist Party clearly excites strong sentiments, both for and against. But IMO the solution isn't to propose deleting the entire entry but rather to add a Controversies section - and take pains to ensure the entry as a whole retains a neutral point of view.--Davidcpearce (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Your description of passing mentions, promotional nonsense, interviews with the founder and the founder's commentary on his own work as "coverage" is disingenuous. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Stalwart, please assume good faith. I posed a question. For what it's worth, my own left-liberal political views are far removed from the party's founder and several leading supporters. I was just noting that mainstream media outlets tend on the whole to interview only people and organisations that - rightly or wrongly - they regard as notable. --Davidcpearce (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• You posed what seemed like a rhetorical question based on an (intentional or unintentional) misinterpretation of sources and policy. The basis on which it was posed and your proposed solution only serve to distract from the broader question here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Stalwart, yes, I was mystified why you believe that magazines such as Wired would want to interview the founder of a non-notable party. But I'm more than happy to accept your good faith; I just wish that you'd accept mine. My reason for suggesting ways to strengthen the existing entry is that consensus here seems to be elusive. --Davidcpearce (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Consensus is certainly not elusive. The policy-based arguments here are all on the side of those opining for deletion. WP:NOTAVOTE means the newer "but WP:ILIKEIT!" contributions will be disregarded anyway. That leaves two inexperienced editors (one of whom has declared a conflict) as the only two to attempt to make policy-based arguments. I disagree that your arguments, and his, accurately reflect policy but I appreciate your trying to make them. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Stalwart, if consensus is not proving elusive, why are arguing so vigourosly against editors who favour retaining the entry? I'm just trying to find out why you believe that magazines such as "Wired" would want to interview the founder of a non-notable party?--Davidcpearce (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Because I spend plenty of time at AFD and I'm genuinely open to being convinced. I like to play devil's advocate; highlighting the weaker points in arguments contrary to my stated position. The aim here is to discuss something until a consensus is reached, not to simply record "for" and "against" votes. My point is that some aspects of your argument are either irrelevant or contrary to policy. You should focus your efforts on those things that serve to answer the concerns raised by others. Broadly, proponents should focus on securing more reliable source coverage of their organisation rather than trying to shoe-horn their organisation into Wikipedia in an effort to promote it. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Why does Wired want an interview? Editorial discretion? It doesn't matter - it's still Wired reporting what the founder said about his own organisation. Those are generally considered primary sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Stalwart, by all means say that that you strongly disagree with editors who favour retaining the entry. But this is very different from claiming a consensus. The reason I suggested a Criticisms / Controversies section - and extra vigilance in maintaining a neutral point of view throughout - is precisely to avoid any of the promotional - or derogatory - content that contemporary political entries tend to attract.--Davidcpearce (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Stalwart, there are original independent articles on the Transhumanist Party coming out almost every day. I referenced one today, yesterday, the day before, etc on the page. The party is also involved in various actions, including partnerships with nonprofit work in Africa and some environmental campaigns working protecting against existential risk. There's a lot of stuff already going on. And much more coming. Thanks. Comment added by Mikegeraton (talk • contribs)

• As explained, only one of those things contributes to the notability of this organisation. You added more self-published stuff, a dead-link and another primary source interview. This is the wrong place to promote your personal interests. Once it is (or if it becomes) an established political party written about by more people than its founder and members, come back and try again. The promise of "more to come" is meaningless. We don't publish things that way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Many things contribute to the notability of this organization, including almost 40 original references now (many which were taken out, but can still be undone or seen in edit). Also, as of today the Transhumanist Party is officially helping out with publicity and donation efforts for AIDS orphans in Uganda with various nonprofit and religious organizations. I've updated the page to reflect this with reference. I'm sorry you want to insist that the Transhumanist Party is not a notable organization. It's one of the most discussed topics currently in the transhumanist community, which easily has millions of people around the world interested. Comment added by Mikegeraton (talk • contribs)

• Nobility and notability are not the same. Doing great works has no bearing on notability. There are many charitable people and community-minded organisations - few are notable. Being discussed among those already interested in the subject doesn't do much for notability. You seem very insistent with regard to what Wikipedia policy should or should not be without a great deal of understanding about what Wikipedia policy is already. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep upstart political party passing WP:GNG with multiple, independent sources.--TM 17:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Zoltan Istvan#Political career. I agree with those saying it is premature for this to stand as a standalone article. As pointed out several times previously, the sources are nearly all primary and/or do not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Plus, it could be argued the subject dosen't meet the basic prerequisite for an article, which is verified existence. From the sources currently available, it seems the only evidence of the existence of the Transhumanist Party is Zoltan Istvan saying it is a thing. While Mr. Istvan may well be a man of integrity, and may well be serious and sincere about the formation of this party, he is by no means a secondary source. Having said all that, there seems to be no dispute about the notability of Istvan himself (and for those who might ask: "well, dosen't that make the transhumanist party notable, by extension?" No, it dosen't). There is also no apparent objection to the party being referenced in the section of his article I've linked to above. Clearly, this Party is a significant project of his, and at the very least warrants mention in his bio. So why not merge a portion of the content of this article to that section where it can be redirected, until such time (if and when) the party clearly establishes notability in its own right as to qualify for its own article? Of course, the content would have to be condensed in a way that is in keeping with WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:COATRACK, but basic information about the Party would be available and easily accessible, as it would keep the term "Transhumanist Party" in Wikipedia's search engine. If the article is redirected, I propose the edit history remain intact, for ease of restoration to the mainspace should the Party be deemed notable in its own right at some future point (which certainly seems to be a distinct possibilty). To me, this seems to be a fair, reasonable and somewhat obvious "compromise" solution, if you will. I'm a bit surprised no one has suggested it before.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• MERGE/REDIRECT As suggested above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B12F:585B:BDD9:8059:4D98:40A9 (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect per NextUSprez. Changing from my previous !vote of "delete". Makes sense to redirect as the party is already mentioned in Istvan's article. As pointed out, this can easily be restored to article form if & when reliable secondary sources can be provided that confirm the party is an actual existing legal entity, and not just an elaborate pet project of its founder.--JayJasper (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Additional comment Note that merge-and-redirect is a viable option even if the article is deleted. --JayJasper (talk) 14:45, 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.