User talk:Buspar/Ron Paul Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Ron Paul Revolution

I would like to know why this article is being considered for deletion?--Duchamps comb (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul Revolution. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate: KEEP or MERGE this article?

Welcome to the talk page debate on whether to:

1. KEEP this article as it currently stands (granted, with some additional NPOV editing)
or
2. MERGE it with the article Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008

Let's try and keep this discussion civil, no personal attacks. --smileyborg (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. My rationale: the main article (Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008) should focus on the official campaign efforts. Any grassroots events, movements, efforts, organizations, etc should be moved and kept to this article (Ron Paul Revolution) only. This keeps the size of the main article down as it already is very large, and allows this article to be developed into the unique aspects of Ron Paul's grassroots campaign. I strongly agree that this article must be edited to get it to a NPOV status. And just some general typo-fixing as well. But it's only been up for a couple of days, so that is to be expected. --smileyborg (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SIZE and normal subarticle policies. Buspar (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SIZE and normal subarticle policies.--Duchamps comb (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A small request: could you not copy paste what I say? I get creeped out by that. :) Thanks! Buspar (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This appears to me to be an attempt to generate some sort of "alternative consensus" or otherwise circumvent the AfD discussion that is currently in progress regarding this article. Interested editors should be aware that the decision on what to do with this article is being worked out there, not here. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    I interpreted this as subservient to the AfD discussion. If elected for deletion, the page will be removed. If not, then this debate will kick in and a merge will or will not take place. Considering the huge deletion notice at the top of the page, I'm interpreting the arguments here supporting KEEP as implying "in the event of non-deletion, we vote to keep." If they want to oppose deletion, they can do so in the AfD discussion. Besides, most of this data is getting merged elsewhere anyway leaving the argument over Delete vs. Merge rather moot, since they'll have the same result anyway. - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    This is absolutely not an attempt to generate a new "favorable" consensus. As CheshireKatz replied, it is essentially to clear up the confusion and havoc in the AfD that resulted from personal attacks as well as wasted votes on deleting the article outright. The large majority of opinions are split between a merge or keeping the article as is. Considering this IS the clear consensus, I started this discussion to allow a fresh start where people can change their opinions and decide whether to keep or merge (then redirect) this article. The whole goal here is to come to an agreement, not to piss other people off or make an incoherent mess of a discussion that resolves nothing. Sure, you may feel this effort is "not kosher," but since when did any of us follow the rules, anyways? --smileyborg (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Actually technically the nominator of the AfD did not "follow the rules", because the nominator suggested a merge, not a delete. Merge decisions do not require AfD, but rather can be boldly done or, if controversial, should be discussed on the talk page of the article to be merged, as is being done here. DHowell (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. We already have articles on Ron Paul, Ron Paul's political positions, Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign, etc. I really don't see the need for yet another article especially when there's already Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. 12.10.248.51 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You mean, Merge, because Delete is not an option in this debate. The consensus from the AfD was that this article should NOT be deleted outright. --smileyborg (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. I think there is a good argument for renaming it something like "Grassroots campaigning for Ron Paul" with a redirect. But the campaign article plus this one are just too big to merge, even if pared down properly, and there is a clear and natural division between supporter activity and official activity. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Many more votes on this question are on another page, but I forget where. They should be merged onto one page. Korky Day (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No, actually, this is the place where discussion SHOULD be. The AfD page started off as a vote to merge (which is not a Deletion as AfD requires). Since the consensus was clearly that information should NOT be lost (as in a Deletion), now we need to start over and discuss whether to merge or to simply keep the article as it currently stands. Or maybe rename and move this article. So the votes on the AfD page shouldn't be brought here, as that is a whole different discussion altogether (and the only consensus reached was to NOT delete the article outright). --smileyborg (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources using this phrase to describe the grassroots campaign that it ought to be considered notable. We do have articles about campaign slogans, such as "Tippecanoe and Tyler too", and grassroots movements, such as "Draft Eisenhower" ("I Like Ike"). This article is about both a campaign slogan and a grassroots campaign, which have both attracted significant notice from the mainstream media. DHowell (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

While I like Ron Paul well enought [this article] certainly does deserve deletion. Could someone with the know-how tag the aformentioned article?Reinoe (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)