Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imperial-Federalist party of America


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Imperial-Federalist party of America
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence that this group exists beyond a Facebook group with 65 members. Wikipedia is not for something you made up one day. Ground Zero | t 04:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if this is a legitimate political party (which I doubt), it is not a notable political party. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 09:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete – Please go somewhere else, where you can "Create a Free Website". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Sorry, dude. Try Wordpress for your party website or something. 71.184.147.117 (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. I don't think this meets the Speedy Criteria, though the assertion of notability (reforming the entire US Government) is implied rather than explicit. It's not an obvious hoax, seeing as a few dozen people buy into the idea. But a few dozen people does not notability make. Come back with reliable sources when the party has a candidate for major office, as an example of the sort of notable things notable parties do. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. and above comments.--JayJasper (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons already stated and cited. I suggest the creator tries using a free wiki host. DerekMBarnes (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as spam? If not, normal delete as a fringe political manifesto with no indication of notability for the party. It might be a better party than the present ones (I have no great love of the parties in my own land either), but it's not ready for Wikipedia yet. Try aboutus and LinkedIn - so far as I know they're still free... Peridon (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no idea whether this party is legitimate or not. And no one has provided evidence that this is a hoax. We don't delete articles on political parties simply because those parties do not have the financial resources to "spread the word". As such, I'll err on the side of caution and vote to keep. That said, the article does need significantly more detail and WP:RS if it is to be taken seriously, (I'm not even sure if it's about a political party or a political movement for constitutional reform). BlueRobe (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I applaud BlueRobe's good intentions, but Wikipedia has standards for inclusion based on verifiability. This group cannot be verified to exist outside of the author's mind and some quickly constructed websites on free web-hosting platforms.  Whether or not the article is a hoax, there is no independent verifiability of the existence of this group, and therefore the article cannot be allowed to remain.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Blurobe, if you have "no idea whether this party is legitimate or not" you should not vote to keep.  TFD (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete obvious hoax. TFD (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2010 (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.