Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul Revolution

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. Any useful content from this article is in Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008; it was content that was already in that article, therefore the GFDL requirements are satisfied. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul Revolution

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject not notable in its own right; suggest merge to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete --- this is an article about the slogan of a campaign that already has a strong WP article. It is far more likely that the (appropriately verified) content from this page could contribute to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 attaining GA (or Ron Paul achieving FA) than it is that this article about a neologism could ever become an FA. Three additional points:
    1. Another Paul campaign neologism, Moneybomb, quickly became a magnet for OR and coatrack Paul boosterism
    2. WP would not benefit from the (constantly changing) campaign slogans of every campaign getting articles; where do we draw the line? Presidents? Senators? State senators? There are already venues in WP for this content --- the articles on the campaigns themselves.
    3. What is the likelihood that this article retains any value into 2009? Even the successful Bush campaigns don't leave this kind of detritus. --- tqbf 19:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    • A reply per points: 1. That another article about Ron Paul became a center for OR and coatrack is irrelevant here. 2. The article is not solely about the slogan, but is about the term as it is used to describe Paul's grass roots support. Said usage is consistent with its use in the media, where the activities of Paul's base independent of his campaign have received enough media attention to make it notable and warrant a separate article. Please re-read the article, which I've been working on improving. 3. The article documents a notable grass roots campaign independent of a politician's own official structure. Given the rarity with which this kind of phenomenon has occurred, I'd say this article has large potential to be useful in 2009 no mater the outcome because of the topic's importance in Presidential election history. Buspar (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
      An "improvement" to an inappropriate article made by shifting content out of another valuable article can hardly be considered an "improvement" to WP as a whole. Again: you are creating a second article for the same topic. Paul's entire campaign is a grassroots effort. This is no different than would have been an '04 attempt to create a "People vs. The Powerful" Kerry article. --- tqbf 19:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
      You still haven't answered my point that the article I'm removing material from is too large by Wiki standards and, therefore, Wiki policy says that branching it off is entirely appropriate! If the Kerry article was having the same length problem, your hypothetical new article would be entirely justified. The fact remains that Ron Paul is 83 Kb and his campaign article is 119 Kb, so creating new articles to contain subsets of the info there is not only warranted but expected. This article is just one such subset. Given the continued length of the parent articles, more branches may be appropriate. After all, so long as an article meets WP:RS and WP:N, it should be kept. And you've already conceded both of them and seem to have no suitable response to my WP:SIZE citations. Buspar (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      It's transparently not a WP:SUMMARY page; if it was, it wouldn't be called "Ron Paul Revolution". You do realize these articles have edit histories, right? This is a POV fork, which two editors are currently attempting to retroactively turn into a summary page. No doubt they mean well, but it will stay a proper summary page (once it achieves that) until about 5 minutes after this AfD completes. Perhaps someone less involved with the Paul campaign should divide it up. --- tqbf 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      "No doubt they mean well, but it will stay a proper summary page (once it achieves that) until about 5 minutes after this AfD completes." Wiki's not a crystal ball - and neither are you. :) The future of the article will be guided by consensus and constructive editing. Deleting an article just because you suspect it may become POV sometime in the future is not a sound basis. The article should be judged for what it is right now: a branch off of two other oversized articles that contains reliable sources and is notable. That it didn't start out that way is irrelevant, since articles can be improved. Also, this isn't a case of a POV fork: "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus." Do you have evidence Duchamps disagreed with another editor and so started this one to avoid consensus? I saw none going through the edit histories. Buspar (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      This is a second article about the Paul campaign, ostensibly about the campaign slogan (a conceit not shared by any other '08 campaign), but really about how the Paul campaign is different/better/grassrootser-y than others. I'm going to opt to continue to call it a POV fork, but I understand your objection. --- tqbf 05:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -True “Ron Paul Revolution” it is a slogan but it also refers to the supporters. As the grass roots supporters (in their mind) joining the revolution, change in America, we can also see from moneybomb fundraising and intrest is not small. It is in Mainstreem media TIME and theLos Angelas Times refering to “the Revolution” AKA the supporters. WP needs to define what this word as it is gaining in common parlance IE nightly news. It’s more of an ideology than a slogan which is why many will poo poo it!--Duchamps comb (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    Duchamps comb should have mentioned that he is the creator of the nominated article; he also specifically requested that User:Buspar, User:Smileyborg, User:Katydidit, User:Monsieurdl, User:Verad, and User:John J. Bulton comment on this discussion; all of these editors have written favorably about Paul. --- tqbf 03:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think Monsieurdl and Verad would be surprised to know they'd written favorably about Paul (diffs please); I see no reason to question Duchamps comb's statement that only neutral canvassing of Paul-interested editors was intended. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    I don't. WP has edit histories on all articles. Note the editors Duchamps did not request comments from. I think you're wrong and will leave it at that. --- tqbf 20:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment --- I dispute that any mainstream media outlet refers to "the revolution". When TIME prints the words "Ron Paul Revolution", they are referring to the campaign slogan. They do the same thing with the Straight Talk Express, which (properly) does not have an article separate from John McCain. --- tqbf 01:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Abstain. Topic can be easily dealt with within Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Article is awfully written to boot, usually Paulites are a little more skillful. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Article has been changed a lot since I originally cast my position; I no longer have a good sense for what the best way to arrange all the RP material is. Nor do I envy the closing admin who has to sort this one out. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Hahah, you are so right. Poor admin, what a mess we editors make. Ah well... --smileyborg (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete very biased, can be contained in the presidential campaign article and I definitely feel that the "Ron Paul Revolution" is a neologism, or merely an off-hand comment that may/not have much currency. ShivaeVolved 19:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, merge, and make more encyclopedic. People might wish to know what the "Ron Paul Revolution" is, and what exactly the phrase represents, but I think this should be presented in the main article. - Connelly (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per tqbf. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • --OK, merge, and make more encyclopedic. I just want someone to be able to do a WP word search and find it. Without reading the "whole page". Would prefer It's own page but am not opposed to merge, and make more encyclopedic. Maybe some off you folks would lend a hand in edditing?--Duchamps comb (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The idea of Wikipedia is NOT so that "keywords" will have linked advertising information, so I disagree that the info in this article should be kept only so that it appears when a user searches for "Ron Paul Revolution". I believe this article should be maintained independently of the original; rationale follows my vote a bit farther down the page. Now, if the consensus IS indeed to merge and redirect this term to the main article, the redirect should link directly to the subsection where the information is moved to (as opposed to a redirect to the top of the Ron Paul campaign article). Agreed? --smileyborg (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The term "Ron Paul Revolution" has been used in multiple news reporters, such as Jack Cafferty. It is therefore worth having an article that details what it is precisely. I've seen news articles describing the "revolution" in papers like the Washington Post and other places, which means the article passes the "perfect article test." I suggest having the article be about the people who support Ron Paul and their efforts that are independent of the official campaign, such as the money bombs, blimp, and fund raising. This would keep the article on the official campaign from becoming cluttered. Buspar (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment --- it's hard to dispute that the term is newsworthy; we don't need to dredge up every reference to the term. But the topic already has an article: "Ron Paul Revolution" is the slogan for Paul's campaign. In effect, you aren't asking for an article about a notable topic: you're demanding that the WP carry two of them. If boosters for every candidate did that, WP would be littered with useless articles about defunct campaigns. Why carry two articles, when one article can be improved and taken to GA? --- tqbf 01:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Would be three of them, actually ... there is already List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances, believe it or not ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
      • It is appropriate to split things off an article when the content would cause that article to exceed size recommendations. Case in point, the List of Appearances. This article would document the grass roots efforts - which are well recorded - and keep them separate from the official campaign efforts (which are also notable), which go in the main article. Keeping articles a certain length by branching off sub-sections is good Wiki practice and not redundant, as you seem to suggest. That's how I see this article being important. Buspar (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I'm sure you're right. Without knowing that on "June 5, 2007 Paul was interviewed by Laura Knoy on New Hampshire Public Radio" or that on "September 14, 2007 Paul spoke at Seattle University in Seattle, Washington" we wouldn't have any idea what his campaign was about. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
          • I think you missed my point. The point of the branch off is to retain information without causing an article to be too long. Buspar (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
            • I strongly agree with Buspar's comments above. --smileyborg (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per tqbf, and merge with Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. 71.166.36.102 (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep --On one hand, the article does not seem to have enough standing or significance to stand on its own, and I would normally suggest it simply be merged and redirected. However, I do believe that the Ron Paul campaign in particular is the only presidential campaign at present for 2008 which has so extensively mobilized itself at the local, grassroots level. Since there are a significant number of grassroots efforts in the "Ron Paul Revolution," I do not feel this information will fit appropriately into the main Ron Paul article. Therefore, I recommend KEEPING this article for the moment, until it is no longer a current event (ie, Ron Paul does not become nominated/elected, the "Revolution" becomes history, etc), and there is no more significant grassroots activity for the Ron Paul campaign. Just a note, if there were any other candidate who was running such a large grassroots campaign, I would recommend he/she be entitled to a similar article as well. --smileyborg (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a newspaper. A vote to "keep until no longer newsworthy" is a vote to delete. --- tqbf 14:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Let me rephrase that. I believe this article should be kept due to its significance and one-of-a-kind following. And I argue to err on the side of caution when removing an article such as this one, which is what I was trying to get across. I believe the article should be kept for a period of time to allow it to be developed more than one day. If the article turns out to contain information that is either a) solely biased, or b) not important enough to meet Wikipedia's standards, then it should be removed. Essentially, this article was created "before its time," as we do not yet know the full significance of the phenomenon it describes. But I do see where you are coming from. --smileyborg (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
          • That policy isn't relevant to this particular AfD, as the article in question does not contain speculation and is well sourced. Also, a vote to "keep until no longer newsworthy" is NOT a vote to delete, per past AfD precedent where allowing a current event to pass and then going back to reevaluate its contents was done (such as with Internet celebrities). To delete, you need to show the article isn't noteworthy in the way it lacks secondary sources. This article does not lack secondary sources, so its contents are notable. Buspar (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
            Where did you get the impression that the only reason an article could be deleted was lack of notability? This article should be deleted because it is a redundant POV fork. --- tqbf 03:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge any useful info. The term is not notable on its own and the content applies to his campaign, which already has its own article.--Svetovid (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless if Ron Paul does not become nominated/elected, the "Revolution" is still valid. Because this is the first time in recent/digital history that thousand of people have become interested in a canadite in a personal way via meetup.com as well thousands of first time would be voters are now registering. Google “Ron paul cured my apathy” Even the Nov 5 moneybomb was created by one such supporter. –My point being that many thousands of people interested in politics will change the face of US politicks, energized to back the next big thing they are willing to put their time, money and vote into. Wit the origins being “the Ron Paul Revolution. I’d say that’s worthy.--Duchamps comb (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    And here we have the crux of the problem with these Paul neologism articles --- they assert that Paul's campaign is somehow "special", so much so that its slogans and slang take on encyclopedic value. In any other campaign, "revolution" is an empty peacock word. On the subject of Paul, it seems to be more valuable than the Rose Revolution --- an actual revolt, which now has fewer words than this Paul article. --- tqbf 00:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, it's like there's never been an American grassroots candidacy that caught on and brought in uninvolved voters before ... no Eugene McCarthy in 1968 or George McGovern in 1972 or Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 ... sigh. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete; this appears more to be cheerleading for Paul than anything else --Mhking (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, BUT that's just how the article is written at present. With some editing it can be restored to a NPOV status. Most importantly, articles should not be deleted due the the content of the article, but ONLY for the content/significance of the article title itself. I think the quality of this article is both high enough with sufficient content to merit its own separate article...there's too much to merge (instead of further lengthening the Ron Paul 08 Campaign article, this article can be used to take some of the load off from the aforementioned article...official campaign activity should be detailed in the aforementioned article, and this article should focus on the grassroots aspects). There's far too much sourced and fairly high quality information to simply delete. --smileyborg (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
      This article references Myspace, Facebook, YouTube, press releases, The Ron Paul Blog (to "verify" that Paul has "surpassed" Obama), Meetup.com, a Ron Paul chat log, "Hotties 4 Ron Paul", and 3 different Ron Paul vanity domains. Much of the "high quality" sourcing simply repeats content already present on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 and Moneybomb. I think we'll live without this article. --- tqbf 05:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The article has 50 some references, including the Associated Press, CBS, Time, Situation Room, Boston Globe, and others. Please read the article before dismissing it so readily. It already includes numerous reliable secondary sources. Buspar (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, please note: this article never had "NPOV status"; it was created by a Paul partisan, and every person advocating for the article in this AfD debate has also written favorably about Paul in Ron Paul (or related), which is how they ended up on the nominated article creator's canvass list to comment here. There's no original good status to return this article to. --- tqbf 05:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thomas, since you repeat this charge, please see my and Monsieurdl's comments above. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Your comment refutes my assertion without evidence. --- tqbf 20:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
By your reasoning, a person who liked anime could never write an NPOV article on anime because they like it. That's bad logic. I, for one, have a history of cleaning up Ron Paul articles to keep the personal opinion out and only including opinions from secondary sources. If you see instances of POV in the current article, feel free to remove them. But deleting an article because you think the person who started it has a bias is neither logical nor assuming good faith. Buspar (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying what you can or can't write, and my reasons for deleting the article, spelled out at the top of this page, have nothing to do with your POV. I'm simply disputing the idea that there is some "NPOV status" for this article to "return" to; the article was created as a POV fork of an existing article. --- tqbf 06:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
All right. However, isn't the point not what the article can be returned to but more what it can become? I've already improved the article by moving material that was cluttering other articles to this one. This article also allows for detailed info on the blimp and networking, material that doesn't belong in either the moneybomb article or in the article on Paul's official campaign since neither the blimp or the networking belong to the official campaign. Buspar (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you're doing great work, which will eventually be a service to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, where it belongs. --- tqbf 06:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If he wins or if maybe he had some impact on the 2008 election but other wise its just his internet buddies truing to get his name out there and wiki is not a soapbox Gang14 (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • For what it is worth I am all in favor of giving this page "NPOV status" It has potential and to mark for Deletion after only one day seems like a bit of bad faith.--Duchamps comb (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    So are you saying that the vast majority of editors here who support deleting this page are also acting in bad faith? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
NO. I'm not saying that at all (don't be a troll). Only a select few (you) seem to have a personal vindetta. --Duchamps comb (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ron Paul's presidential campaign page. The information is notable enough that it does deserve to be mentioned (with proper citations and NPOV of course), but I really don't forsee that it would ever need its own seperate article.Umbralcorax (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

* Keep The mention of Paul's slogan makes me go into hot flashes! I can't control myself! Just kidding. I've seen more trivial matters on kept on wiki though.Reinoe (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not that's it's trivial, it's that it already has an article. --- tqbf 19:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Yet another Ron Paul is wonderful article. The swarm of other articles about Ron Paul cover this sufficiently. Burzmali (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename for a very simple reason (I may go into the other subreasons and rebuttals later). There is a consensus here for keeping the usable content (i.e., high number of "merge" comments), and the current campaign article is already overlong at 110K: so breaking it out in summary style into official and grassroots activity is an excellent way to fix both problems. AFD after one day seems uncharitable when a cursory review of the sources suggests much useful minable material awaits gleaning; and breaking out much of the campaign article's material on Internet, fundraising/moneybombs, straw polls, and supporter blitzes would be well-moved from campaign to Revolution. This is additional to the well-developed and unanswered points of smileyborg and Buspar.
One other fine point of Buspar's: this is much better than having a separate "Ron Paul Blimp" article. The blimp is borderline notable enough right now to merit mention in a more generic article like this, but would be harder to defend on its own.
I would encourage all to remember that the question must be stated as being about the existence of an article about grassroots campaigning for Ron Paul (add: that would be an example of a neutral rename), including one section on origins of the term "Ron Paul Revolution". Pretending the debated article is about some other topic (such as about a term or slogan only, or about pro-Paul POV) would not be helpful for finding the consensus on this question as I and others state it. As stated, the question yields a clear affirmative. Disclosure: I successfully predicted this article's eventual creation on 11/30 12:23, but have not been minded to contribute to it. (I also believe personally that, if deleted, it will be recreated sustainably.) John J. Bulten (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
You think we shouldn't delete the article because if we do, people will recreate it? That's what protection is for. --- tqbf 19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not say potential recreation was a deletion argument, but a personal belief. And protection is not proper for sustainable recreation. I note you did not respond to my actual arguments. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This article "contains usable content" because it "repeats the content of other articles", such as Moneybomb and Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. This article is a simple POV fork. --- tqbf 20:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
If you've read the article recently, you'd see that I've moved material into this article that is not repeated in the other two, so your redundancy argument no longer applies since this article now contains more details, with the other two only have brief summaries and "See also" links. Buspar (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as clearly notable in its own right as a grassroots campaign. Any information here overlapping with the campaign article (e.g. details of moneybomb, Boston tea party, internet rankings, social networking) should be kept here and summarised in the campaign article, with See Also links to Ron Paul Revolution under the Internet Popularity and Fundraising section headings. Corleonebrother (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    Are you aware that Moneybomb (and, thus, Boston Tea Party) already have articles? Your argument is therefore that "internet rankings" and "social networking" need their own article. --- tqbf 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    The Moneybomb article is about the neologism used to describe a grassroots political fundraising event - it is not limited to Ron Paul events. The November 5th event and the BTP should be described at their most detailed here. Corleonebrother (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    And now we see the other problem with these neologism articles:
    • That article made "no consensus" on an AfD by arguing that it was a neutral term that applied to all candidacies, but
    • it's since become such a cesspool of OR and coatrack boosterism that the most prominent thing on the page is picture of Ron Paul, and
    • the only aspect of it that applies to non-Paul campaigns are its attempts to attribute every fundraising event in the 2008 primary season to attempts to copy Ron Paul, and yet
    • it's now being cited as a non-Paul article to justify fitting yet another Paul neologism into the encyclopedia.
    Let's be clear: the Boston Tea Party event you referred to earlier is the most prominent example of the marginally notable phenomenon of "moneybombs". But, for the sake of further expanding Paulite content on WP, you advocate removing it from the moneybomb page and adding it to this article? One wonders if you'll be up in arms a week from now, when it's been copied back to Moneybomb so that it resides in both articles. --- tqbf 23:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    I never said that the Boston Tea Party event should be removed from the Moneybomb article, it should be mentioned there as an example of a moneybomb, but described in detail here at Ron Paul Revolution. The rest of your points are irrelevant to this AfD discussion. Corleonebrother (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • UPDATE some folks are deleting sections from the Ron Paul page and the Ron Paul 2008 page and puting it in the Ron Paul Revolution page. I don't mind making the other pages smaller, but if this page is deleted the info. will be lost. We need to figure out where to put all the grassroots fundraising info...--Duchamps comb (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    Welcome to Wikichaos! Wasted Time R (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's just you, Smileyborg, and Buspar that are doing that... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • All that I have done is source a few things, add a few things (NOT from other Wikipedia articles as you suggested), and change the See Also to a more descriptive one that explains this article is focusing on the grassroots efforts that are too large for the main article, and to go to the main one for official campaign appearances, polls, etc. Info will not be lost, this article will either remain as it is, be moved to another more descriptive name, or merged back into the original. I support keeping this article and moving things over from the official main campaign article that would better fit here. And if the consensus is that the name of this article does not properly reflect the contents, maybe rename the article (I don't have any better ideas...). I think the AfD tag should be removed, and ONLY possibly replaced with a suggested merge tag...but we should have another discussion on whether or not to do so. Seems to me that nearly everyone agrees not to simply delete this information in the article outright. So it boils down to keep as is, or merge into the main article. Time for a new discussion, let's start at page 1! :) --smileyborg (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you're trying to say about what "it boils down to", but it's currently 14 v 5 in favor of "delete", 4 of the 5 "keeps" were canvassed, and one of them is the article creator. --- tqbf 23:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I did not canvass! Thank you. I only contacted people who edited on Ron Paul's page. I have no way of knowing if they are pro or con. Or as to their political views. --Maybe I'll go and send a "NPOV invitation" to many more. Maybe some new ideas and opinions could stop all this incessant filibuster.--Duchamps comb (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with User:tqbf that you are canvassing, and you've contacted at least two or three other pro-Paul posters in an attempt to influence the outcome of this discussion since he raised the issue. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the invitation I sent out to ALL who edited on the Ron Paul page. Did you even check to see how many people I invited that wanted to delete the page? Check your FACTS before you espouse your simple mindedness.--Duchamps comb (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A neutral invitation is still canvassing when it is only sent to people you believe would agree with you. I think you're being disingenuous. You can take it to my talk page if you want to argue further. --- tqbf 01:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
So you're arguing that myself and others have not improved the quality of the discussion? You're both assuming bad faith and being uncivil. Your point might be valid if all I did was say "Keep per Duchamps," but since I've refuted several of your arguments and been generally constructive, you don't have a leg to stand on here. Buspar (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. But yes, I think you're here because you were canvassed. --- tqbf 05:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Gotta love how your response to being told you're canvassing is to go and canvass nineteen more users. =) --- tqbf 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That's how you know he is a RP supporter =P Burzmali (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Please obey WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your implication that Ron Paul supporters are somehow poor Wikipedians is not appropriate for this discussion. Do not use such language in the future. Buspar (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
To notify other editors with a neutral "friendly notices" of ongoing discussions, messages that are written NOT to influence the outcome but rather to improve the quality of a discussion should be looked at with negativity.--Duchamps comb (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I would remind all that Duchamps is basically an SPA (see here). — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:BITE (image removed) Thanks "HelloAnnyong"...--Duchamps comb (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment --- I thought of SPA-tagging too; he's worked on several articles, but virtually all are all Paul campaign articles. --- tqbf 05:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, since when do we give presidential campaign slogans, tactics, and movements, their own articles, except when extremely successful and only after the fact? (such as the eminently, and permanently, notable Daisy commercial)) Put this into the campaign article, and if that gets too long, prune it. If Paul somehow miraculously gets the nomination (and I say this as someone who will caucus for him on January 3), then the information can also be added to the 2008 presidential election article. But as it is, it's just a campaign tactic, one that, in the longer scheme of things, will end up being only a minor blip. This is a slogan - nothing more, and it deserves no special treatment. --Golbez (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all the cited facts and NPOV content with Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. I agree with the user above (User:Golbez) that much of it is a slogan and does not deserve its own article. Happyme22 (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep possibly delete in distance future, The Ron Paul Revolution has become a part of pop-culture and people at least for now and maybe in the distance future would want to know what Ron Paul Revolution meant when and if the concept is still active in political discourse just like Reagan Democrat has become a part of pop-culture and the political discourse. Lord Metroid (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not a newspaper. A vote to "keep until no longer newsworthy" is a vote to delete. --- tqbf 01:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 per WastedTimeJForget 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Burz, tqbf. Please be wary of possible sockpuppetry and canvassing to keep articles like this alive. I assume good faith, but with RP supporters, good faith with caution is advised. I see that Duchamps comb has already got the ball rolling there. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; this is a thinly veiled attempt to give exposure to a campaign slogan for crying out loud. As for the canvassing... well it seems something is going on, but I was solicited and as far as I can tell I've never show views sympathetic to that kind of promotional article or had contact with much anyone else around here, so I couldn't tell why me. — Coren (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, Some information in this article is already found in the main article, everything else can be merged.--STX 04:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. afd is premature. This article, IMO, ought to discuss the grassroots campaign for Ron Paul. The presidential campaign article is bloated enough. This should not be a pov fork, but rather a sort of subarticle to the Ron Paul Presidential campaign 2008. If people want to roll back all the information into the campaign article, go ahead. But that article is huge. Just give this some time and let this article become stable, and then if it's unsatisfactory afd it again.--Goon Noot (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed with above. As I mentioned before, close this AfD as this article is NOT going to be deleted outright. Then let's all move to the talk page and discuss whether to MERGE or KEEP. This discussion is getting too long and personal anyways. Don't you agree? --smileyborg (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I have started a new discussion on the matter over here. --smileyborg (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      What does this comment even mean? The AfD will close in a few days. How do you figure this for a snowball keep? Even with canvassing, this article loses. --- tqbf 07:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      You're right, there is no "snowball keep." But if you read through the votes, nearly every person agrees (=consensus) to NOT delete the article without a merge first. So thus, the discussion becomes merge or keep. (Don't forget - a merge means this article essentially will be deleted, just the useful info will be "salvaged" first.) I simply suggest we start the discussion over because this one got a bit messy and now we can rule out a pure deletion as there is definitely a consensus not to lose some of the info in this article. Okay? --smileyborg (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      Merge is one likely outcome of this debate. Keep is not. Either way: AfD's don't close on account of "messiness". Wouldn't have been "messy", had it not been canvassed. --- tqbf 07:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      But see, the problem is that an AfD that goes through as Delete risks losing info in the article if not properly merged. IF the consensus of "merge" is reached, then relevant info should be merged and this article turned into a redirect. The AfD should be suspended (or Keep), and we will simply discuss this on the talk page again so people can "revote" if they elected to simply delete the article at an earlier point in time, or if people wish to change their minds now that there is less risk of completely losing all information. By simplifying this debate and starting over, I'm acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, not my personal desire to have this article remain as it is - honestly, I could care less if it gets merged or not (even though I do have an opinion on the matter). --smileyborg (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      I think you already made this argument, but there it is again. I think we can wait for an admin to close the AfD, though. I'm still delete. --- tqbf 08:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      The argument is that (even though we aren't voting and shouldn't be) I count the tally to be 18 Delete OR Merge VS. 8 Keep at present. That is a majority, yet hardly a consensus as 30% argue to keep the article as is, while the remaining 60% are somewhat split between a pure delete and a merge. This ambiguity, in my opinion, requires a clean debate to clear up the mess. So while you wait for the AfD to close, you might as well head over and put your vote in to merge over on the talk page. --smileyborg (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      It's 19-8 (closing in on 3-1 against); you missed the nom. I'll stick with the AfD debate; let us know if you figure anything out on your talk page. --- tqbf 08:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      Yes, right, 19-8. But closing in on 3-1 against? No, it's much closer to 2-1 against (2.375-1 to be exact). And remember, that 2-1 is lumping pure deletes and votes to merge into one category. My only point was that there is not a consensus yet, however. But anyways, if you are so opposed to contributing to the article's own talk page, so be it. I have no interest in persuading anyone to do anything. --smileyborg (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      One thing to remember: AfD's aren't decided by majority rule, but by the application of Wiki policy. Even if there are fewer keep votes than delete votes, if the keep votes make better arguments, the article will be kept (assuming the admin reads the discussion as they're supposed to). So, the outcome of this AfD can't be predicted just yet. Buspar (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      Agreed wholeheartedly. --- tqbf 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the definition of the term is different to different people, and every element of it can be more properly placed somewhere else (chiefly the campaign article - grassroots efforts on behalf of a candidate are part of political campaigns, not a separate phenomenon). If somewhere down the road the Ron Paul Revolution is recognized as a significant concept in political science, then it might deserve its own article, but for now it seems like a redirect to the campaign article and the incorporation therein of whatever useful content can be found in this one would suffice. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete outright. In the nomination I suggested a merge, but most useful information in this article is duplicated elsewhere. It is unlikely that this poorly written ad about an campaign slogan for a minor candidate could ever achieve NPOV status. I hope the closing admin will take into consideration the pro-Paul canvassing surrounding this AfD. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This new article covers an important and unique topic. Merging the article into the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 is unnecessary, would make said article too long, and would be unwise, because it covers a separate topic. The Ron Paul Revolution is unique in that it is independent of the official campaign. Like the Goldwater Conservative movement, the RPR is very likely to outlast the 2008 election season. RPR is Goldwater Conservatism on steroids. It provides enough information for at least one separate article. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    Your example disproves your point — there's no separate Goldwater Conservative article. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    Hmmm. Good idea. There ought to be a separate article about the Goldwater revolution too - even though it was much smaller, and has till now been put to bed by the neocons. The Ron Paul Revolution is resurrecting it and giving it a much more libertarian flavor. It could be incorporated into this article. JLMadrigal (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Then Delete - I'm officially changing my vote (Can I do that? I hope so...). The R.P.R. isn't yet notable especially since we don't know if he'll even make it out of the primary. Even if he does, this isn't notable enough as is to justify its own category in wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinoe (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete article does not stand on its own. Topic is covered in the campaign article. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:Notability (see section Notability is not temporary). This article is ostensibly a dump for the latest Ron Paul grassroots activity that find there way into the papers. It's long-term notability is dubious, except perhaps as a few lines scattered throughout Paul's 2008 campaign and developments. The Ron Paul Blimp & Boston Tea Party Reenactment have already been transitioned over to the Ron Paul presidential campaign developments, 2008 page, leaving only the Moneybombs & various minor events (the details of which are largely duplicated). - CheshireKatz (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    Believe it or not, the Moneybomb and Tea Party stuff have their own article too. --- tqbf 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep so main article isn't too large, as many others have said. Maybe revisit in 6 months, or if Ron Paul quits the race. If no one tells us editors that a vote is happening, most of us will never know, which is just plain stupid. A beloved article of mine was deleted before I ever heard of any vote. Korky Day (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    This is another "keep until no longer newsworthy" vote. Wikipedia is not a newspaper --- there's a seperate wiki for that. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball --- if we have to predict that it merits an article, it probably doesn't. --- tqbf 20:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I clicked on that link about "not a newspaper" and the word "newspaper" did not appear on that page once. I'd say an encyclopedia is a distillation of all newspapers past and present. Also, the article is good even if Paul drops out today. It doesn't depend on any prediction. Those of you who are always trying to shorten WP in one way or another forget the READERS, who want more content, not less. Let them decide what they want to read or not. This is certainly encyclopedic. Korky Day (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Duchamps, the author, is very fully aware that this article is up for deletion. He has been quite active here and on a few of the other Ron Paul pages. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I never said he wasn't. I said that I wasn't aware. I don't check every day every article I've ever edited, so I deserve to be notified when one of them is up for deletion. Korky Day (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment --- One of the reasons that Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 is "too big" is that it's poorly edited. For instance, the contents of Moneybomb are, predictably, duplicated almost in their entirety. A large list of "notable campaign appearances" dominates the latter half of the article. The article has five paragraphs of information about the fundraising results of a single fiscal quarter. Another fifteen paragraphs of content apparently detail anything ever said about the candidate by anyone notable. Perhaps editing is a better cure for the ailments of this article, not wholesale metastasis across the rest of WP. --- tqbf 20:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    I concur, the WP:SIZE arguments for preservation are undermined by the fact that Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 is flooded with items that are simply not noteworthy. Permitting this fork to exist merely allows the items contributing to the excess size to persist unaddressed. - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    As I said above, "Those of you who are always trying to shorten WP in one way or another forget the READERS, who want more content, not less. Let them decide what they want to read or not. This is certainly encyclopedic." Korky Day (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    All of us, on both sides, are substituting our own judgement for that of the anonymous reader. That's what editing is. --- tqbf 21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    The Ron Paul campaign article may be long, but it is also generally well sourced. Where a reliable source exists that provides a comment on a factor relevant to the campaign, it should be included to make the article as perfect as possible. Remember that noteworthiness is determined by the media attention it receives. So your argument that it's not noteworthy is countered by the very presence of secondary sources. Remember, the perfect article "is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including information that would be more suitable in "sub-articles", related articles, or sister projects." I argue that the article is too long not because it does not contain noteworthy material, but because some of the material is better placed in sub-articles such as the one being discussed here. Buspar (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't criticize the article for being unsourced; I criticized it for being poorly-edited and redundant. --- tqbf 03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Let's not get stuck on the CONTENT of articles; when an article is deleted, it is because the article's name in and of itself is inappropriate, insignificant, etc. Content can always be changed to better fit WP's standards and the article's title. But the title itself determines whether an article lives or dies. --smileyborg (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Being poorly edited isn't something that qualifies an article for deletion, however, so long as it meets WP:RS. And redundancy is easy to fix. Buspar (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP --- The r3VOLution is not about a man, the man Ron Paul is the first one to admit this. Rather, it is a continuation of the original American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the original Bill of Rights. It is deserving of its own page because it is much larger than the man Ron Paul. In fact, Ron Paul 2008 had nothing to do with the r3VOLution logo. This is a movement that needs to be documented. It is not a man says Ron Paul.Anappealtoheaven (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    — Anappealtoheaven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --- tqbf 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    Err, a quick glance at his contrib's shows he's been generally editing political candidates articles, not only Ron Paul ones. And that doesn't somehow affect his credibility to have an opinion on this AfD. I don't think you should be hunting for ways to discredit votes for "Keep" that disagree with yours. I'm sure some of the other votes for "Delete" have been made by editors with similar edit histories, but to me, that's really not important unless they are sock-puppet accounts. --smileyborg (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Check his contribs; he edits other GOP candidates to add negative information to them, and adds positive information to RP articles, and that seems to be the extent of it. Thanks for giving me the chance to straighten that out. --- tqbf 05:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The argument that voting to wait and see on future notability is somehow a vote to delete is NOT in keeping with past precedent. When Chris Crocker was put up for an AfD the second time, conditional keep votes (i.e. wait and see if Crocker gained popularity beyond Internet stardom) were considered equally valid as unconditional, resulting in a "no consensus" ruling. So the argument that a vote to wait is a vote to delete is incorrect given past AfD rulings. Buspar (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    I don't mean to suggest that I determine what votes are and aren't valid, but for what it's worth, WP is not a newspaper or a crystal ball; if you can't say an article is going to remain valuable, that's a symptom of a bad article. --- tqbf 03:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    I, for one, can say it's going to remain valuable, as right now we have 1 article on the candidate, 1 on his official campaign (plus sub articles), and 1 on the independent grassroots effort. How would information on that not be valuable later on? There's little if any speculation in the article (which wouldn't retain value) and a good amount of hard facts (which do retain value). SO I don't see how either newspaper or crystal ball apply here. Redudancy is your strongest argument for deletion so far, but that can be resolved with some syncing up of the articles (which I've already done some). And there's still WP:SIZE that says subarticles related to Paul's campaign should exist. Buspar (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep though I considered a merge. This is not unique to the 2008 election since I recall seeing this slogan used in the past, so it spans multiple elections. Probably the most ubiquitous campaign sign in Vegas this season! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 04:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice- Nothing but spam by another Ron Paul supporter. Haven't they vandalized the Internet enough? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Pro-Ron Paul article that would be better off as a paragraph in the Ron Paul Campaign article. Not neccessary, and in all probability will be forgotten in three years. Kevin (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep or Merge As stated by several above users, this neologism has been used by multiple news sources. However, if the page cannot be saved, I suggest it be merged into Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. However, the idea that such a well referenced and well written article be deleted.... I do not think this bodes well for the future of Wikipedia. --Sharkface217 23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks Sharkface! Rather than try to analyze the above morass and reply point-by-point (as another editor seems keen on doing), I will merely append here to voice my confidence that a neutral admin will find a nonconsensus closure, and to re-emphasize a glaring problem with deletion (especially one-day deletion of an article that is well-sourced and content-worthy even though it hasn't had time to be developed properly). Most of the delete comments have "merge" elements. So the problem is not content but placement. However, the deletion would ignore the standing consensus at Ron Paul to split, which this article and others are attempting to carry out; the proper placement for grassroots campaigning for Paul is in this article, with most of the campaign article more appropriately needing to merge to this one. Right now Ron Paul is laid out in summary style with reference to six other articles, two of which are up on AFD; the helpful template for navigating them is also up for TFD. Deletion is simply not the way to decide where content goes; the simultaneous delete period hampers ability to move content and in fact encourages the redundancy itself, because of fears of this, that, or t'other vanishing. A great chunk ~20K has been removed from Ron Paul on the presumption that this article will stand. I would appreciate the prior commenters questioning whether this simultaneous urge to merge is improving WP, or getting in the way of extant efforts to improve it. Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    It's funny to watch the things people will say when they forget that everything on WP has an edit history. Next time, before you strike "~20k" worth of content from an article, you might wait to see how the AfD on the POV fork you've decided to merge to comes out. --- tqbf 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with your first sentence! I was referring to the striking of 19K by CheshireKatz, who also opted for deletion of the Revolution article above. What were you referring to ("next time, before you strike")? John J. Bulten (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge - I'm pretty much on the fence here but overall I think that since this is a movement as part of Paul's presidential campaign, and not a simple grassroots effort about some social cause, it makes sense to incorporate it as a section of the article about Ron Paul's campaign. -Timberlax (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Hey, people, there is no such thing as "delete and merge"! The GFDL won't allow it. If you merge text into another article you have to have some way to determine the original authors, who retain copyright, and have licensed that copyright under a license that requires attribution. --Trovatore (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    Merge is merge. If the outcome is merge, leave a redirect. Does anyone really care? --- tqbf 02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, people care. A merge is completely different from a deletion. In fact it was incorrect in the first place to bring a requested merge to AfD -- see WP:MERGE for the proper procedure. AfD is only for when you want the article deleted, which means its history will no longer be accessible. --Trovatore (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think you need to reread WP:AFD (and I know you have 5x my edits) --- merge is a common outcome of AfD. The nom wanted to delete. I want to delete. John wants to keep. The outcome might not be either. Obviously, any of us can go do a WP:BOLD merge right now, but given the debate here, the prudent thing to do is to wait for the discussion to close; it would be a dick move for me to pretend like John and "Duchamps Comb" are OK with a merge. --- tqbf 02:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge is a common outcome. But it shouldn't be the intent going in. If you know you want a merge, either do it yourself boldly, or use the "requested merge" methodology. And you stated from the start that you wanted a merge (even if you changed your mind later), which means this nomination was procedurally incorrect. --Trovatore (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know which AfD you're commenting on now, but I think this is the Nth time I've pointed out that the nom wants a delete, and I want a delete. Just because I'm not going to be apoplectic if the article is merged, doesn't mean I commented in bad faith. --- tqbf 02:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have always wanted this article deleted, what little useful info there is in it placed in the appropriate article(s) and possibly a redirect placed on the page. I changed this to a simple delete later on to be clearer about this. Perhaps I used the word "merge" carelessly (or maybe not)--but why shouldn't we salvage what's useful from the article? At any rate, people !vote for delete and merges (meaning "stick relevant info in appropriate article") all the time. This is the first I've ever heard that GFDL doesn't allow one to do so (though that doesn't mean you're not right, necessarily) and it seems a little unnecessarily lawyerly to insist that the whole AfD is "spoiled" because of that. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, what you said was that you wanted it merged. That might mean deleting most of the content, depending on the degree of the merge, but even if you just redirect it without merging any content, that still isn't a deletion. The content would remain accessible in the history. I understand that in usual terms you might see a pure redirect as equivalent to a deletion, since the content is not directly apparent in any article, but for WP purposes it's quite a different thing. Still, no, I don't think the AfD is "spoiled". My comments were for future reference. --Trovatore (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I just reread the original nom, and you're absolutely right; I should have been more careful and specific with my choice of words. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless --- yes, you're right, there's no merge-and-delete. In the interest of avoiding an unproductive DRV debate, I think it's safe to assume that the merge-and-delete crowd is fine with merge-and-redirect; I know other AfD's have "discounted" merge-and-delete, but, come on, don't you think that's just process run amok? --- tqbf 04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, if I were closing this debate (note: I'm not an admin) I would have no problem counting "merge and delete" as "merge and redirect"; that's likely what they actually mean. Note however that those do not count towards deletion. Only "delete" or "delete and redirect" !votes count towards deletion (that is, blanking the history) -- all other !votes are arguments for some version or another of "keep" (even a redirect without merge is a "keep" for AfD purposes, because the history remains). --Trovatore (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd just be happy to see what the consensus is here. I'd be fine with a merge+redirect (again: I want a delete) --- that's still one less page that needs to be policed for boosterism. --- tqbf 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should mention "newspaper". Were the United States Constitution given proper respect by the newspaper editors, &c., and were the public adequately informed, the politicians would be pressured to comply, the Law of the Land would prevail, and there wouldn't be any Ron Paul Revolution. Good thing Wikipedia is not a newspaper. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The strongest argument to delete this article was that it was redundant. However, I think I've eliminated most of the redundancies with both Ron Paul and his presidential campaign article, making this a proper subarticle like several others that exist. This leaves some overlap with Moneybomb, which can be cleaned up through editing. Buspar (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (1st choice) or merge and redirect (2nd choice), but very strongly do not delete. There are plenty of reliable sources using this phrase to describe the grassroots campaign that it ought to be considered notable, but at the very least it is a valid phrase for a redirect. Note that nearly all of the arguments for "delete", including the nominator's, are actually arguments for a merge and redirect: "suggest merge", "the (appropriately verified) content from this page could contribute to" the campaign article, "can be contained in the presidential campaign article", "Delete and merge", etc. Merging articles does not require deletion or AfD at all, and an administrative decision would not have been necessary if the proper process were followed, and merging an article's content to other articles without retaining the edit history of the original article would violate the GFDL. This is the appropriate place for a merge discussion. By the way, the lack of articles about other campaign slogans (though we do have "Tippecanoe and Tyler too") should have no bearing on the existence of this article. If other slogans are notable then they probably ought to have articles too. I'm surprised that there is no separate article for the extremely notable "I Like Ike", though the Draft Eisenhower article to which it redirects is very much analagous to the Ron Paul Revolution article. This article isn't just about a campaign slogan, it is about a grassroots campaign which has attracted notice from the mainstream media. DHowell (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point! Arguing that since other campaign slogans don't have articles this one shouldn't exist is a logical fallacy per WP:OTHERSTUFF. So that's another argument for deletion that doesn't work. Buspar (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - per nom. Can someone explain why this candidate essentially has three articles about an open campaign? If he loses, then all of this will be yesterday's news. Merge per WP:NOT#NEWS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest re-reading the newspaper section, specifically: "Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial." This article does not contain tabloids, announcements, or gossip as its main sources - they consist primarily of substantial sources of competent journalism. The "Wiki is not a newspaper" is meant to prevent sensationalist news on celebrities or "flash in the pan" attention getters (like that duct tape bandit fellow). Paul's sustained widespread coverage, as well as his status as a Congressman and presidential candidate, mean that documenting his candidacy is neither sensationalist or temporary. I'd argue, in fact, that most candidates should receive as thorough a treatment as Ron Paul has had. Buspar (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
My interpretation, and hence the reason I made the statement I did regards the routine news coverage. I think the day-to-day routine reporting of a campaign for nomination, in and of itself, does not meet notability under this policy. If the campaign is revolutionary for introducing something new to politics, or if the campaign is especially historic, then its notable. This is not even a presidential campaign; this is a campaign to get a nomination. The person is notable, but this article amounts to political advertising. Further, there is the issue of being in the news for a brief period of time. This is subjective as it is written, but I think this is relative. This campaign has a fixed length (irrelevant of the outcome). Most political campaigns (certainly not all) do not have historic importance beyond their relatively short era. I interpret that to mean "brief time". If, at some time later, this campaign ended up influencing the outcome of policy or further politics, then a seperate article may be warranted. I see nothing in this article that amounts to the campaign being revolutionary, causing major changes to politics/policy in America, etc. Thus, I think a merge into the article about Ron Paul is the best outcome. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2007 (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.