Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Patriot Party (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 on strength, not length, of arguments. Fram (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] American Patriot Party
AfDs for this article:
Previously nominated in 2005, at which time there was no consensus. There are few Google news archive hits for "American Patriot Party", none of which look to be promising sources for an encyclopedia article. There are Google books hits for this phrase, but these refer to the "patriot party" of the American Revolutionary period and not to this modern group. It's difficult to see how an NPOV article on a minor political party could be based solely on that party's own announcements. As it was in 2005, this article is an unverifiable and non-neutral advertisement. In case anyone should be misled by the link from United States Senate elections, 1994, and conclude that this party has run candidates for the US Senate elections, these in fact refer to the predecessor of the Reform Party of the United States of America and not to this group. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This appears to be Richard Taylor's political philosophy, and Richard doesn't appear to be running for anything. There are no other names mentioned on the party's website, other than candidates from other parties whom he endorses. No candidates, no address, no publications, no indication that it's registered anywhere as a party --- but (surprise) it's got a platform. If you want to know where Richard Taylor stands on the issues, this is the gateway, I guess. Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Not only is this a horrible article, wikipediacally speaking, but it is blatant advertising with no citations. I believe this should be deleted and that the few links that point to it should be eliminated. It is barely notable. A great argument for this deletion came from the first nomination: A search of 600+ American newspaper archives from 2003 to present shows 3 results. 2 are in passing reference as part of a list of third parties. 1 cites the website for historical info on the revolutionary war. There is no evidence of campaigning or any political activities. Probably 1 man and a P.O. box.. The article should not have made it past that AfD. Timneu22 (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This actually doesn't appear to be a "one-man" operation. In the article itself, it notes that two others (Party Chairman Bryon K. Pulliam and Party founder/National Secretary Brian Nichols) have left the party. Granted, not a great sign of health for a party, but still, indicative of at least a THREE-man party. Also, on the party Website's State Parties" page, 14 states show state chairs, and some have co-chairs. All are different names. So we're up to at least 15 names involved. And no offense, but whether or not this party has been successful in getting its name in the paper (or, to be accurate, getting its name in ONLINE papers that can be searched) it is actively seeking support. Wikipedians need to understand that getting ONLINE mentions does not equal "notability." Having said all that, the article could be improved, but that requires a "could be improved" tag, not a deletion. - Nhprman 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - even if we overcome WP:N problems (which I feel exist) this article is completely unreferenced. Even if someone did a complete rewrite (which is necessary) there do not appear to be any reliable sources to use to bring this into compliance. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Having viewed the deletion tag on the American Patriot Party I had to present a formal protest to the unfounded statements made here. The American Patriot Party has numerous State Chairs and organizers. Since the start of reorganization of the party, the party is gaining in interest and popularity. Removing a article from Wikipedia of an established party, whether or not it has acquired state recognition which takes thousands of signatures in each state to accomplish, it remains a viable political party and one that is unique in its devotion to the principles set by the founders. It is true there is not many major articles written on the party, but this should not devaluate its existence. I will direct those to view Wiki's statements with regard to articles which indicates one "should not tear the house down, before it is built"; As Chair of the American Patriot Party, starting with being invited to the party by the Ohio State Chair in 2004 and accepted to Chair for the state of Oregon by Brian Nichols who was the founder and secretary for national, it has taken time and diligence by those involved to both maintain and reestablish a party that fell to one state at the time the national stepped away. Three states Chairs returned back to the party of the original states due to our clarifying our party stands and goals, and in one year (2007) added 10 new states and Chair persons. Note that it took 10 years for the Libertarian Party to be even noticed at all; Reorganization of this party is a little over a year. One may view not very many news articles, as not a bad thing. If one views our "what people are saying about the American Patriot Party" link you can find a very positive and receptive public. Should a writer wish a news story, the struggles prior to reorganization can be viewed at: http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/01/24/american-patriot-party-officially-done - aside from two flamed responses to our continuing the party, the letter posted by THIRD PARTY WATCH sent to them by the Chair of the APP National at that time establishes the condition of the party at that time. The Letter reads: Notice: "The National Office of the American Patriot Party has closed. Lack of funds and increasing struggles with changing membership has forced this action. We gave it a good try, but in the end the personalities of those involved in Third Party politics has convinced us that this project was doomed from the start. Most of the members, including the National leadership, has moved back to the Republican Party with some of the membership bolting to the Constitution Party. The few bright spots organizationally and in numbers were seen in Illinois, >Oregon<, and Ohio. In the end though the forward progress in these states was not enough to keep the party moving in the right direction. Thank you to all of our members and supporters, and God Bless you all. Regards in Liberty, Bryon K. Pulliam, Ex- National Chairman, American Patriot Party." The clarifications as to goals and principles of our party changed the direction of the party so to not allow for the membership interpretations and problems that arose in the prior structuring of the party. I would hope that those considering deletion can find it advantageous to dig a little deeper, or at least be a little more patient in a political arena that historically takes decades to develop with regard to political parties. I have listed references to the Way Back Machine that shows the web site in 2003 of the prior party and to our 2008 platform - though our Platform may not be written as one would like, it being what the party stand, is hard to expand upon by opinion elsewhere. Note that recently the party has been in frequent contact with the Ron Paul 2008 Champaign and from which an endorsement was established by the American Patriot Party; Though national news stories may not have covered this, it is still noteworthy, as is our party growth; I am sure many in the republican and democratic parties would like Ron Paul to go away but the message being an important one is hard to ignore; A message that our party also promotes through education of the important foundations that establish true freedom. There are those that wish as much for our party to go away; With that I will ask that this article remain as a foundation for further development on WIKI so that others can review and contribute as the party continues to establish itself. Richard Taylor, Chair, American Patriot Party.CC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Taylor APP (talk • contribs) 00:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Surely, this party has received local newspaper coverage (even if the newspapers don't have an online Web presence - something that is NOT necessary to establish notability, IMO.) If so, notation of them in the article, referencing facts in the article backed up by these news stories (in reference format) would be helpful in establishing notability. I'm amazed nothing is on the official site to this effect, either. As to your point about being patient, I agree, and would urge people to let this be a "stub" for a while. But you have to understand there's a strong tendency here on Wikipedia to delete every stub and every topic that hasn't made a huge media splash. That's not what an encyclopedia is, or should be. Nhprman 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. On past party activity, I can direct others to at least two past party members who have ran for office prior to the party reconstruction. These are Patricia Saye, Nevada APP Chair and Western States Coordinator who ran as Republican for the 41st District Assembly in Nevada - See Review Journal - http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Nov-04-Thu-2004/news/25166677.html where she captured 35% of the votes (having ran as independent in 2002); And Joe Bellis, APP party organizer and Kansas Chair who ran as a presidential candidate in 2000 and Libertarian candidate for Kansas Third Congressional District seat in the U. S. House of Representatives in 2004 - http://joebellis.com/bio.htm This further establishes that those wishing to delete this page simply have not reviewed the facts with regard to a party that, not unlike the Ron Paul campaign, has an underlying membership and supporters that is not easily detected by the national or web presence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Taylor APP (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not only must we correct Angus McLellan, a English speaking wiki user who resides in Belgium of all places, that there was, as has been shown, party members that in fact have ran for office; I must also respectfully respond further to the statements made by users Mandsford and Timneu22; First to their remark that the article as being poorly written; A statement made after someone has removed all the Founders quotes from the article; Such a statement after this has occurred is completely uncalled for. The stands presented within our issues page possess these quotes for a purpose, and that is to establish that the stands are in line with the founders intents. Would one take the Republican stands on issues, remove sections out of it and either leave it undone, make minimal edits or rewrite a established document to someone else's satisfaction then proclaim it as the Republican stand on Issues ... and proclaim it as a poorly written one at that? This is not a sports story or an opinion article, but a factual record of the party stands. Would one, after all of the Founders and historical quotes have been removed from this article that establish our party positions as Jeffersonian, as has been done by someone who did not even care to review that the founders quotes were part of the party's position on issues, to then make a statement that the philosophy is entirely one person's? Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, George Mason and many other founders established their philosophy strongly on John Locke; and John Locke based his on Richard Hooker and Richard Hooker on Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Aquinas on Albertus Magnus and Albertus Magnus and all these men upon the teachings of God and Christ with some basic societal observations of Aristotle; One would have to either have no knowledge of history or be void of all reason to make a statement that this is one person's philosophy; Or possibly, though I hope this not the case, dislike the parties positions so much that he would take steps to remove it from public view. The fact is the party exists and its Philosophy is by all accounts Jeffersonian and Natural Law principled which is established by those works the party promotes of noted philosophers and theologians that have established the meaning of freedom; That there may be some innovative positions, this is true, but those positions are all founded in forwarding the philosophies of those who established the laws of freedom. To make such wide sweeping unfounded statements as have been made by those who wish to delete the article, after someone had depleted the historical and factual substance of the article, is at the very least far reaching; and for a suspected purpose to remove it for other reasons, certainly not of those that have been posed unless they had not reviewed the earlier changes. in any case, if one does not understand history, one should not scribble upon it and throw it out in frustration simply because it doesn't sound right them; If the information on philosophies I have given here is not understood, go here: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter/APP_2007/app_2007.html read all the links on the page and in the graph; making sure to read the Rights of the Colonists, The Constitutional Debate presented and John Locke on Civil Government; and then edit the article with at least some historical background. If the persons wishing to delete or make statements to that effect are not willing to study these philosophies, they should not be editing or judging them. I suggest the article be reverted to present those founders quotes, with references given, making the article whole again before further editing takes place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Taylor APP (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (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.
