Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result of the debate was keep as nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pirate Party

Non notable, non registered frivolous party, founded yesterday. / Ezeu 16:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I withdraw my AfD nomination and request a Speedy Keep since the party has recieved media coverage in Sweden. --Ezeu 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I will take up the dropped nomination. This is the "slow news" time of year, they'll publish anything. I can not assign notability to a day-old political party/website. Ifnord 18:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - If they are allowed to take part in the Swedish General Election then they would be notable. It does not seem completely non-legit in my opinion. JoachimK 16:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • They have registered as a political party with the Swedish electoracte authorities after collecting the 1500 signatures needed. Their homepage had received 75 000 hits 6 hours after it opened. The party is mentioned in several newspapers as of today, for example Svenska Dagbladet ([1]). The party might not have been registered when this vote started but now it is and it will definately be heavily discussed in the media for some time on. This vote has become completely meaningless. Of course, KEEP. --60.40.63.114 17:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the creator of this article, I was well aware that it might be nominated for AfD, I even thought about nominating it myself, just to see if others thought it was notable or not. So here we go. My humble opinion is that this party is very notable, especially when you compare it to a lot of other political parties that have articles here on Wikipedia. -- Elisson • Talk 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Created yesterday? Hoping to attract %4 of voters? Crystal-ballism - at best. Ifnord 18:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Well, it already has gotten enough support to be registered as a political party. -- Elisson • Talk 18:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Big difference between registering and fielding candidates. Even bigger difference fielding candidates who actually win. Parties rise and fall all the time. I don't think Wkipedia should be a platform to enable notability - that's advertising. If they can achieve it by other means then they can get an article. Ifnord 19:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I can assure you that Wikipedia in no way will be a platform to enable the notability of the party, the file sharing-community is doing the advertising all right themselves. I seriously doubt that more than ten of at the moment 3,354 signatures (in 24 hours!) have come from people finding the webpage through Wikipedia. -- Elisson • Talk 20:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep they're in the media and they appear to have successfully registered for the Swedish general election. Dan 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, They'll get their fair share of media coverage soon ehough, Piratbyrån is a very industrious organization. Obli (Talk) 21:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The party is currently not affiliated by Piratbyrån or any of its spokesmen, even though it seems natural that it will happen very soon. -- Elisson • Talk 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Besides, if this one goes, you should consider deleting the Donald Duck Party, as well, it didn't even register as a party. Obli (Talk) 21:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. After some time thinking and reading this discussion, I'll go for keep. There are loads of less notable articles on parties which still should be included. Note, as stated above, that I am the creator of the article. -- Elisson • Talk 23:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable, current event. Tagged as current event. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 00:17Z
  • Keep - Jord 02:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Now it's on slashdot, there's some international media coverage for you all... Obli (Talk) 17:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, or move to The Pirate Party. --Erif 19:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that the English translation could also be The Piracy Party, as seen on slashdot. We should probably wait until the party releases an official English version of their site before moving the article. Obli (Talk) 20:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, It can be considered as part of the ongoing cultural-political-ecomomic developments in the digital age. Ashwoods 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • +1 Wesha 23:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • +1; must hold a article about a potentially historical (maybe spreading?) political ongoing in the EU and in/about the web-community, that/thus already is widely in international press and reckogned by internet-users (Swiss daily press, for example, did mention it). Dorobes 22:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.110.140 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. It's an important article that should be here, and a key article on the Anti-copyright movement, which is a very important worldwide current ongoing on the moment;but I'd move it to the swedish name Piratpartiet, of course keeping a redirect.-- Roc VallèsTalk|Hist - 08:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is nothing wrong with this page. Todays news is tomorrows history. Jonathan Windle - 08:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information that might end up being notable. Gazpacho 09:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a fad that rides on a notable political issue is... a fad. Gazpacho 08:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Articles about Piratpartiet are featured in most of the major Swedish news papers and a few other European ones. --Shreddy 11:47, 6 January 2006 (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.