Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Imperial Party

American Imperial Party was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete. Cool Hand Luke 23:34, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hoax, or joke, or invisible. --jpgordon{gab} 00:18, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Numerous format fixes by Jerzy (t) 18:59, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC).

Keep. Do not delete, above lacks proof other than Google for a political party that does not rely on the internet to spread it's message --Antman
Delete. No mention of party on either politics1.com or dcpoliticalreport.com - given that the latter mentions even the "Netocratic Party", which only exists on a webpage, I find it dubious that this party exists. --Goobergunch 00:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- And I am confident that you are an expert on the political system of America. -- Antman
  - Any proof that this party exists? Those sites are fairly authoritative in my experience.... --Goobergunch 01:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: repeated hoax. Geogre 01:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Multiple vote. ~~Keep~~: User Geogre is biased. -- Antman
- Above, unsigned, duplicate comment was by Antman. --Goobergunch 01:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Same reason as for Imperial Republic of America. --Gene_poole 01:37, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. User Antman is biased. Ashibaka ✎ 02:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- ------. User Ashibaka is biased. Antman
Delete. A Google search only gives me five results for four different applications of the term, not one of which appears to be related to the usage in this article. Not only does this group not use the internet, at all, apparently, it isn't reported in any papers or periodicals which are published on the internet either. Therefore I can only find that it is definitively non-notable if not downright fraudulent. Fire Star 05:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can show evidence of a reasonable level of support at the ballot box. Average Earthman 08:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I don't like Average Earthman's criterion here, but arrive at the same conclusion that they hardly exist, much less are notable. --Improv 15:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This may be a silly question, but what other criterion can you have for a political party other than people vote for them? Average Earthman 16:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - How many people they kill to seize power? I realise that my point probably isn't germane to this particular article, but your question calls to mind that for most of human history politicians installed themselves in any way that they could, "legitimately" or not. Cheers, Fire Star 18:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - I think there are ways to notability outside of actual votes, e.g. if Earth First! were a political party, or parties that were notable in the past, like the Federalists, or parties that are notable as part of a notable struggle, like the Communist Party of the United States (although that's a maybe -- in that case maybe it should just have its day as a footnote in a larger article). --Improv 13:45, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Average Earthman, a group of people banded together for political purposes can consider themselves a political party. However, as the article lacks an external link to an official website, something even the tiniest parties have, I can't see any evidence it exists outside of the article. Even a citation of a newspaper or magazine article would be good. Inky 02:13, 30 Oct 2004 (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.