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. Consensus among editors who are able to stick to one account and cite policy: not notable. There is no inherent notability for a political party; having a few people run here and there does not make the party notable if those runs are not discussed in depth. Mentions of some candidate or other like Heos in the Boston Globe fall into the man bites dog category and do not add up to passing the GNG, for instance. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Visions Party

[edit]
Twelve Visions 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 party. WP:MADEUP. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This page, Wikipedia Content Twelve Visions Party, should not be considered for deletion. In today's America we are struggling daily to retain a sense of civil liberties and constitutional rights. I have always admired Wikipedia due to the fact that there is an unbiased approach to archiving content without prejudice. The desire for the advancement of knowledge and retention of data is crucial to the development of people and civilization throughout the world.

Censorship occurs when voices are silenced and regulated. When the vote on the CISPA Laws were enacted; the individual perceptions of political entities became immediately empowered to determine what types of behavior were considered to be a threat to national security.

A perceived threat is not a Constitutional observation as categorized under the guidelines of Habeas Corpus. The Twelve Visions Party, its Members comprised of State Affiliates across the United States attempts to retain the right to represent the people as a Political Party that is outside of a right or left wing organizational perceptions. The Twelve Visions Party, though small and virtually unknown, has thousands of American Citizens contributing both time and money towards its forward movement and its goal to end corrupted political practices and the continual removal of the Constitutional Rights of American Citizens within the United States of America.

Wikipedia hosts articles on DC Comic Super Heroes who are not real entities. There are articles on curious spectacles throughout its enormous data base. If I had not attended the Veterans Memorial Event in Los Angeles where Presidential Candidate, Jill Reed was speaking, then perhaps I would say that this article should be reviewed for deletion. However, the Twelve Visions Party is a small fish in a large ocean; and yet just the fact that it is still still struggling on through the years in the deep waters of political obscurity should be efficient evidence that its peoples and representatives are a viable Political Party and Movement.

I recommend that it retain it’s listing here on Wikipedia as it is a congregation of Members throughout the United States that, though small and under-funded are working towards political change. Looking2You (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — Looking2You (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This goes against NPOVFAQ as cited above. This is a mis-use of Wikipedia's tools and knowledge base, in my opinion. The history of this deletion subject shows that Doug Weller is actively using his powerful knowledge of Wikipedia's wonderful tools in a bias manner against this Twelve Visions Party page listing. Mr. Weller states above, "I guess the only reason so far to keep it would be as an example of a joke (probably the wrong word) party" is his own opinion and he has provided no verifiable proof of his statement;whereas those that are in favor of this page retention have, as inexperienced participants attempted to provide, and have provided legitimate links.Looking2You (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noteworthy that Richard Heos ran the for Massachusetts state Senate in 2013.[36]
With all of this proof cited here in this article of deletion, how can the Twelve Visions Party be "made up"?
Note that the Wikipedia article "Personal Freedom Party" is not up for deletion. I would think that the Wiki Community would find this party a candidate for deletion as trivial. It is charted in only 3 states, where the Twelve Visions Party was chartered in 14 states when Jill Reed ran as a legitimate Twelve Visions Party candidate for the office of the United States of America. JoshuaSeymour (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — JoshuaSeymour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The only thing you're going to accomplish with the sockpuppetry is to make sure that the closing administrator will ignore your opinion. Seriously, stop it, now, or I will go to a checkuser and ask that your IP range be blocked. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by sockpuppetry? This is my original post. JoshuaSeymour (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other eight candidates have percentages as follows:

• Frank Atkins, former quality control sampler — 1.25 percent • Byron Leonell Castellanos, building general contractor — 6.11 percent • Sanford W. Cramer III, independent contractor — 2.58 percent • Curtis Green, businessman and educator — 7.48 percent • Shawn Hubbard, law enforcement and transportation — 3.61 percent • Marshall Kagan, retired CPA — 7.13 percent • Robert Larivee, executive — 1.16 percent • Carlos A. Proano, civil servant — 4.12 percent

At Smart Voter.org Sanford Cramer III is listed as running for the seat of City Council Member, San Bernardino County, and City of Victorville, CA. Mr. Cramer received 1,527 votes for this position, totaling 5.97% of the overall votes for this position. Sanford W. Cramer, III 1,527 votes 5.97% [40] [41]

Here is an additional reference to Twelve Visions Party Candidate Richard Heos who was on the ballet in Massachusetts Special Senate Election to fill John Kerry's term, an important and notable election that cannot be trivialized. [42]

Jill Reed, the Twelve Visions Party presidential candidate in 2012, who was on the ballot in Colorado, but who filed as a write-in candidate in many other states [43] was interviewed on an independent talk radio program. [44]

On the FEC website, [45] there are (2) Ballots showing a Twelve Visions Party Candidate(s); meaning the Twelve Visions Party had met the State's requirements for being placed on the 2012 Electoral Ballot as a "Write-In Candidate".

Additionally, The Green Papers [46] shows any candidate for President of the United States reporting a minimum of $200,000 in "Total Receipts" to the Federal Election Commission and is thus defined as a "principal candidate" for the purposes of 'The Green Papers' website. Each 'principal candidate' is listed per Political Party.

Also, the campaign funds reported to the FEC for the Twelve Visions Party as mandated totaled $45,217 during the campaign year and was thereby defined by the Federal Election Commission as a "Principal Candidate" in that the Twelve Visions Party shows below the minimum total campaign receipts as per Federal Election Commission Guidelines. Files on E-File with FEC.Gov [47]

Finally, here are the results of the 2012 Presidential Election: Please note Jill Reed as Twelve Visions Party Candidate.

"2012 Presidential Election final vote (with 95% of precincts reported) - from Wikipedia and Google Elections: -Barack Obama (Democratic Party) - 65,909,451 - 51.02% -Mitt Romney (Republican Party) - 60,932,176 - 47.16% -Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) - 1,275,950 - 0.99% -Jill Stein (Green Party) - 469,572 - 0.36% -Virgil Goode (Constitution Party) - 122,378 - 0.09% -Roseanne Barr (Peace & Freedom Party) - 67,359 - 0.05% -Rocky Anderson (Justice Party) - 42,995 - 0.03% -Tom Hoefling (America's Party) - 40,609 - 0.03% -Jerry Litzel (independent) - 12,895 - 0.01% -Jeff Boss (independent) - 12,895 - 0.01% -Randall Terry (independent) - 12,895 - 0.01% -Merlin Miller (American Third Position Party) - 12,895 - 0.01% -Jill Reed (Twelve Visions Party) - 12,032 - 0.01% -Richard Duncan (independent) - 12,032 - 0.01%" PLUS 14 MORE LISTINGS. [48] [49] JoshuaSeymour (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 17:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Relist rationale: The sockpuppetry here is ridiculous, and quite a number of comments here do not direct themselves to policy. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, with this as a goal: "Sexual immortality, have the sexy body of you always evied , internal romatic love, enternal love making, biolagical immortality/stop the process of aging , brint the child of the past, have the love of your life." (I removed the all caps but left the spelling errors) it's got an attractive platform! (A member posted this at Talk:Main page along with other stuff). Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's really interesting information. In fact, your consumer affairs source is the first item in this discussion that makes be begin to think this party may be notable... but not in the way that its adherents seem to think it is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2014 (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.
More