Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twelve Visions Party

===Twelve Visions Party===https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twelve_Visions_Party&action=history

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)

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)

• Comment. Well, it's not made up. It's got coverage from local Boston papers, at least: [1], [2], [3]. I can't find anything beyond that, but further coverage may exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• KEEP, This is definitely NOT made up and it is certainly notable. Not only has it had coverage from Boston papers, it has national coverage from Fox News[4]. In addition they have filed in California with the Secretary of State.[5] [6]. Jill Reed also has notable press from several Colorado sources[7], [8] and[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twosided55 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• KEEP, This is notable and NOT made up. Richard Heos under "The Twelve Visions Party", ran in Massachusetts for the state Senate in 2013 to fill the seat vacated by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findinggold (talk • contribs) 20:38, 9 March 2014‎ (UTC) — Findinggold (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Twosided55 (talk • contribs).
• KEEP. This is a notable and valid Party. Jill Reed (The Twelve Visions Party) – 12,032 votes. [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banner Gal (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 March 2014‎ (UTC) — Banner Gal (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Twosided55 (talk • contribs).

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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete The coverage of Jill Reed mentioned by the puppetmaster Twosided55 is trivial, not "notable coverage". The Boston press is really about Heos and mocks the party. I guess the only reason so far to keep it would be as an example of a joke (probably the wrong word) party. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• KEEP. I received an email announcement on my talk page, a comment from Mr. Doug Weller stating quote,

"The article needs more commentary from independent sources. I've removed your because primary sources are already predominant, and that simply overwhelmed the article. 'Our articles are meant to be built upon what reliable sources say about a subject, not about what the subject says about itself.' There's a learning curve in Wikipedia and sometimes it's steep. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)"

Indicating that Wikipedia has a policy of Non-Bias towards articles and content. I find it little disheartening that the English Editor here on Wikipedia would make it his personal purpose to discredit The Twelve Visions Party in such a blatantly biased manner as he is an Editor here on WikiPedia.

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) 20:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)