Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twelve Visions Party


 * 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)

Twelve Visions Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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) — Looking2You (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. Well, it's not made up.  It's got coverage from local Boston papers, at least:, , .  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. In addition they have filed in California with the Secretary of State. . Jill Reed also has notable press from several Colorado sources,  and  — 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. — 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. — 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 a response on my Wiki talk page from Mr. Doug Weller stating quote, Our articles are meant to be built upon what reliable sources say about a subject, not about what the subject says about itself." Indicating that Wikipedia has a policy of Non-Bias towards articles and content. NPOVFAQ 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) 20:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Who is "the English Editor" and why would it matter if an editor was English? It isn't me since I'm not English, and it isn't my purpose to discredit the party. My point was that the most detailed coverage I've seen is mocking the party. There may be non-mocking material with similar coverage I haven't seen. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * DELETE A political party without a headquarters does not seem notable, even if it had a candidate for President who does not have her own article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * KEEP. The Twelve Visions Party article should not be deleted. This is not a made-up or trivial party. Jill Reed ran for the office of the President of the United States in 2012 under the independent Twelve Visions Party in 14 states, receiving 12,032 votes. Here are some examples: Colorado, Florida, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Illinois, Arizona, Maryland, Maine, New York, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, Minnesota, Wyoming.


 * It should also be noteworthy that Richard Heos ran the for Massachusetts state Senate in 2013.


 * 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&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)
 * What do you mean by sockpuppetry? This is my original post. JoshuaSeymour (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The existence of other possibly non-notable articles is not a reason not to delete. In any case, see Articles for deletion/Personal Freedom Party. As for my comments about the party, they were based on sources such as which clearly mocks it and is used as a source in the article, and . Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: In addition to the citations I previously provided, there are other candidates who have run under the Twelve Visions Party, notably in 2010, Mr. Sansford Cramer III running for a City Council Seat with the City of Victorville, CA.

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%

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. 

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 was interviewed on an independent talk radio program. 

On the FEC website, 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 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

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. JoshuaSeymour (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Link 42 above is to Ballot Access New which in turn links to an article in The Sun (Lowell) which discusses Heos in some depth. Interesting to see that "According to Heos, the party is based on the economic thinking of Ayn Rand". That can be used in the article if we keep it. The radio interview is with "Neothink Radio Network", run out of someone's home and which "helps to promote awareness of a non-political movement called The Twelve Visions Party." I keep going back and forth on this article, but if the best you've got for the presidential candidate is an interview out of a person's home who is in fact promoting the party, that's pretty meaningless. Neothink seems to be another Mark Hamilton thing. Ah, there's a Canadian website. "To complete the evolution into universal prosperity, the powers of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches must be taken away from the opinions and agendas of flaw-filled man and put into a flawless Prime Law." Hm, what is this Neotech secret society Hamilton runs?. Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment In response to Doug Weller inquiring about Mark Hamilton and his society, here is a mentoring session Mr. Hamilton gave to his Neothink Society think tank about the TVP (Twelve Visions Party), the Prime Law, and eradicating the rule of man. (The Neothink Society later put this video on YouTube, which has received 4.5 million views.) And here is Mark Hamilton's 296-page TVP political manifesto, "The Life You Were Meant To Have".  Here are some snippets of MH mentoring his Neothink Society think tank.  I can provide more information on the founder of the Twelve Visions Party if WIkipedia editors want. BTW, the Ron/Rand Paul crowd tend to gravitate to Mark Hamilton ideas.   JoshuaSeymour (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)

 * 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)


 * DeleteNo significant independant coverage. Any political party that has made so few ripples is not notable.TheLongTone (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep See this article about the popularity of Jill Reed and inclusion with the Libertarian and Green Candidates on the historical first online database: To get some intelligent insight into what the Twelve Visions Party is, look at the discussion on wiki answers:  The Twelve Visions Party is also active in Canada  and in Australia.  JoshuaSeymour (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Only one !vote per account, I've struck through this one. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep this article, however, a possible opportunity for revision from persuading point of view should be made as the initial opening paragraph, with the exception of the first sentence, appears similar to that of an advertisement for recruitment -"an appeal to virtue" similar to that of Augustus when he appealed to virtues of Roman patriotism-; to a simple stating of general facts from "no point of view" -as found in the first sentence of the opening paragraph of the Twelve Visions Party page to cite an example-. Giving a specific person's quotes their own Quotes section where necessary, giving Mark Hamilton his own section for Political Views of the Twelve Visions Party, etc, would arguably be a few more recommendations to bring the page closer in-line with Wikipedia's policies.Neutral_point_of_view Notoriety should not be the case issue for deletion raised here as it is an illogically persuading argument -ad populum- for its deletion and retention alike as the Twelve Visions Party wiki-page does in-fact cite political party events and party involvement, as it is, making the political party and page itself worthy of note, albeit, in need of some extensive revision regardless of political popularity at this point in time. I posit that having raised the discussion for deletion citing "non-notable party" at this point as being a reaction to having initially read the persuading opening paragraph of the Twelve Visions Party wiki-page to re-actively raising a likewise equally persuading argument for deletion through discourse rather than the logical case which should have been raised; "In Need of Revision". Should the raised discussion for deletion be an accumulation of circular "my opinion of what is notable and not notable is better than yours" arguments? That would lead to a stalemate at the end of this discussion, would it not? Wouldn't the final judgment then resort subjectively rather than logically to deleting or retaining the page? What would be the benefit? To establish an equally illogical precedent from which to gain standing in future discourse. Rather than acquiescing to "let's just flip a coin" thinking, if no revision can be made or is not made; however, then an argument for deletion should be raised that "the Twelve Visions Party page still does not meet the Wikipedia standards for retention," citing, "failure to meet NPOV Wikipedia standards." In my humble opinion, Wikipedia pages should "speak from no one, to no one". It should be a simple relay of information containing valid facts logically and objectively retrieved from obtainable data from numerous verified sources with the expectation that no one is going to read it nor feel anything in any direction about its contents, which the Twelve Visions Party page could likewise stand to benefit from citing more verified sources on their page where possible.NPOVFAQ AQ Methodologist (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Madkracker6969 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment On the Personal Freedom Party debate page for deletion (Note: NOT on the Twelve Visions Party debate page), user -User:Ad_Orientem posted the following: "Political parties are not inherently notable. That said I do tend to favor a broad inclusionist position when it comes to this topic, provided we are talking about a national party and not the state chapter of a minor party. But as with all topics, common sense dictates some limits need to be applied. In the absence of clear guidance from WP:N beyond WP:GNG (which they don't seem to meet), my baseline for notability is ballot access. Are they now, or have they ever been, on the ballot in any state? As far as I can tell the answers appears to be no. If/when WP:RS evidence on the contrary is found I am open to reconsideration. -User:Ad_Orientem 16:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)" I agree with -User:Ad_Orientem standard for a notable political party, and I will point out again that the Twelve Visions Party has had 3 candidates on ballots in Local (Sanford Cramer), State (Richard Hoes) and National (Jill Reed / Tom Carey) elections and thereby is a notable party mitigating against deletion. JoshuaSeymour (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable local party. Orser67 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article appears to be a promotional vehicle for an otherwise minor party. The only substantial coverage I see is the Boston Magazine article that focuses on Heos' run for Senate. That said, even though the article is cited, there's no mention of the journalists' summary of the party, including "The party managed to get a presidential candidate on the ballot in Colorado in 2012. Despite getting Heos on the ballot, the party’s platform and publicity efforts in Massachusetts are not particularly … cogent." —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This is all more labyrinthine than I suspected. The leader of this party is Mark Hamilton - but Mark Hamilton is actually a trademark of Wallace H. Ward... Integrated Management Associates doesn't mention this but does mention Hamilton and Neothink. Whoever Hamilton is, he pushes Neothink, developed by Wallace H. Ward's father Frank R. Wallace. I am wondering if this is all some sort of Neothink front. If we actually keep this article we would have to be very careful that we aren't giving Neothink, which some say is a cult, publicity. We also need to be careful about how we deal with Mark Hamilton There's also a Facebook post from "Mark Hamilton" about this AfD. I'm taking User:Shlomif/Neo-Tech to MfD - it is also about Neothink. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks, alf laylah wa laylah, but I think that is is probably Neothink that is notable, with a mention of the party in an article on the movement behind it. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable organization run by a cult which may or may not be notable (that would be a different article; only "keeps" here are WP:ILIKEIT and WP:UPANDCOMING arguments by single-purpose accounts who clearly know nothing about Wikipedian standards. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:03, 25 March 2014 (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.