Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul controversies

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul controversies

note to AfD closer: if this gets deleted please first fold it back in to the Ron Paul#Controversies section as this is being used as a WP:SUMMARY main article at present. BenB4 09:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, got it. BenB4 13:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul controversies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

POV fork created for/because of an apparent content dispute in the main article. By definition this article can never be NPOV. — Coren ^(talk) 02:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wait This article was just created. Please give it some time and judge it on its own merits/potential. Read this in the meantime if you wish.--Daveswagon 02:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - it doesn't have it's own merits; it's a POV fork from Ron Paul's main article, because people there can't come to an agreement about what should or should not be included. The article's objection doesn't hold any water here. --Haemo 02:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Obvious POV fork. Likely a speedy candidate. Realkyhick 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not a POV fork, but certainly a content fork. And forking is not a speediable offense. Blueboy96 02:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Content is forking because of Anappealtoheaven's unilateral edits. A review of Talk:Ron Paul and the user's talk page will show such a history. And how is this any more POV than Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies or Controversies of Rudy Giuliani?--Daveswagon 03:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I agree with above, Not really justifiable as it's own article and seems to be a POV fork. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Montco 03:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing to neutral but leaning merge based on Turtlescrubber's suggestion. Comments and attitude by Anappealtoheaven indicate that there is more than meets the eye in this debate. Montco 15:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll modify that further that the 9/11 stuff, while there is no evidence that Ron Paul is a member of the conspiracy crowd, as long as his comments are verifiable, they should be included in his article. It just needs to be left in the context of controversial comments that he has made, rather than some involvement in the 9/11 truth movement. Montco 15:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Content is no longer forked. Could a revised justification for deletion (if any) be issued?--Daveswagon 03:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This was an attempt at WP:SUMMARY style. The several ardent admitted supporters who are heavily editing and biasing the Ron Paul article have deleted the material in this new sub-article, tried to relegate it to footnotes, and have tried to rewrite it in a biased manner, just in the past couple weeks. BenB4 04:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed to Delete per Turtlescrubber below, agreed. BenB4 13:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• • A summary was my intention -- and to detail the controversy surrounding a U.S. Congressman and presidential candidate being played out across many major news outlets and blogs.--Daveswagon 04:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE Your summary does not reverse or invalidate any of the arguments for deletion. A speedy DELETION is in order Anappealtoheaven 04:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, the fact that the content is no longer forked does.--Daveswagon 04:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete Daveswagon and BenB4 are manufacturing controversy and reposting "political position" content OUT-OF-CONTEXT and moving it up in the article to unfairly prejudice readers. Their edits have many characteristics of a HOAX and should be moved completely off of wikipedia. These lies are NOT good enough to publish at uncyclopedia.org. Why are we allowing such a forum for this nonsense on WIKIPEDIA? Delete, Delete, Delete this is silly stuff. Anappealtoheaven 15:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Blatant violation of NPOV. --Serge 05:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge first part, delete the restMainly manufactured controversies, but I have noticed how the real controversy (newsletter remarks) continually gets erased from the main page. Turtlescrubber 14:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Blueboy96 and BenB4, as a valid article about a notable politician. Bearian 16:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete violates NPOV. And if this is what Wikipedia's gonna be used for, that'll be the end of this site as a neutral fact-based encyclopedia.TruthGal 05:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete in light of Turtlescrubber's reasoning--Daveswagon 21:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There is no consistent practice. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Thompson controversies just resulted in a 'keep' after a lot of differing opinions. Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, which had been around for some time, was recently dismantled, with its contents distributed into various HRC-related articles. Wasted Time R 22:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete While I recently supported the "Keep" of the similar Fred Thompson article, it included many more controversies than this, and ones that wouldn't fit into the main article. These could fit into the main article and there are only three of them.--Gloriamarie 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Inherently POV unsalvageable--Ted-m 00:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Obvious fork, it has no merit that the section in the main article hasn't got, this only serves to broadcast certain authors' opinions. --Joffeloff 13:05, 24 July 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.