If you're going to include a list of sources which back up your claim, it helps if they're not bogus in the first place (nat rev, biz insider, etc). Most of those (and in article body) are about Zoltan, penned by transhumanists, in T+ publications, or simple mentions; Wikipedia doesn't do mentions - only in-depth coverage which directly addresses the subject. While you may not need their personal consensus, a rough general consensus based upon policy or broader community consensus is required. The fundamental issue is source selection being garbage; either from a want of confirmation bias, or from a basic lack of broad coverage in high-quality sources. Generally community consensus has been parties need to be registered, recognized by some entity with a supervisory roll in such matters, and to have gained ballot access in an election at bare minimum. The party has no HQ, no FEC filing, no registration (other than an intent notice), no board, no treasurers, no delegates, nothing. Additionally, there is no indication this "party" has autonomy or independence apart from Zoltan.  

 Another problem is instead of addressing concerns, editors continue to try and shoehorn content from rejected articles elsewhere as a backdoor method to undermine the editorial process. The solution is to solve it at the source, not in places like this. T+ Party content shouldn't be in this article at all; it should be on Zoltan's page where it belongs right now until someone decides to actually rewrite the draft from scratch. In this article, it deserves a passing blurb w/ MAIN redir to Zoltan at best. 

 As for other Natural and Pirate Party noted above: WP:OTHERSTUFF (besides, PP is a legit org with seats in parliaments, including EU Parl; IDK about Natural). Namaste.