Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul


 * 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 Keep JERRY talk contribs 06:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This appears to be a casebook example of redundancy. Paul's legislative activities are discussed in much greater depth at Ron Paul. A list of legislation could be provided by linking to THOMAS, the Congressional Record, Paul's website (no surprises, yes we do have a link to that), or to the Washington Post's voting database (we have that too) from the main article. So, partly redundant to a pre-existing article, partly duplicating other, more reliable source of information which the main article links to. A bad idea I suspect, and I don't see how it can ever be anything but redundant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep --- per WP:SUMMARY, --- strip the redundant content out of Ron Paul. Other candidate articles have similar summary breakouts; at least this Paul article is factual.  --- tqbf  22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Keep in mind that not a single piece of legislation submitted by Ron Paul has ever been brought to a vote, to a one, they have died in committee.  Burzmali (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Due respect, but... and? Are we calling the congressional record a WP:SPS now? =) --- tqbf  23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thomas! Burz, please source such an absolute comment. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the library of Congress via Thomas. Aside from a handful of amendments to existing bills, all he has managed to get passed is a concurrent resolution congratulating NASA for being cool.  Ironically NASA is one of the departments RP was gunning for in the '88 election .  None of his bill have made it to the floor of the house.  Go ahead, take a look for yourself.  Burzmali (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you writing this content here, instead of in the nominated article? I totally agree with you, but this doesn't sound like a reason to delete. --- tqbf  06:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's WP:OR, or at least out of scope for WP:PSTS. The Paulatics would be correct to remove most of the information because no secondary sources bother to cover what amounts to Ron Paul spamming the Congressional Record.  Burzmali (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Due respect, but if it's OR in an article, how is it a valid argument in an AfD? These Paulite articles need editors who aren't going to be frightened away by zealots with rulebooks. I bet you're right; why not keep the article, and figure out a way to verifiably argue that this "legislation" is meaningless? --- tqbf  20:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing says that you can't do research to justify an opinion in an AFD. Admittedly, my only research was going through the eight pages of congressional records on Ron Paul's legislation, but since I couldn't find a WP:RS on the topic...  That's why I haven't voted keep or delete.  I think the article should be either deleted outright for a complete lack of notable content, or completely rewritten as an article highlighting his barely notable successes in Congress.  Burzmali (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am just saying that Ron Paul tends to submit legislation he knows will go nowhere just to grab a few headlines (just look at how many times he has submitted a few of them). I really don't see a point in having an article dedicated to legislation that 1: was never passed 2: was never voted on by the full house of reps and 3: never even made it out of committee.  Burzmali (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability applies to topic and is not a line-item veto of individual items. Ten or more of the bills are unarguably notable in their own rights, and it is proper to include the less notable bills with them. The article also is scoped to include legislation which did pass with Paul's significant cosponsorship. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly how is a bill that has ~0% of even making it to a vote on the House floor arguably notable? Burzmali (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are predicting again. Those ten are notable by the silent WP consensus that has let them stand so long. Why don't you nominate those ten articles first before expressing your POV about this one? John J. Bulten (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A question, then: why aren't there articles on every candidate or congressman's voting record? You should take a look at some of the other articles around here. They're not just lists, they're prose that explain the legislation. And they don't list every single one, only the notable/important/controversial ones. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a list, it is a prose description of each, often with notable analysis as collected by other editors. It could be said there is a notable, sourceable distinction between Paul's voting record and most others', but more important, why don't you write those voting record or sponsorship articles? Thank you. John J. Bulten (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in writing those articles. If this page isn't a list, then I don't know what is. Except for the introduction paragraph, every single item on the page has a bullet point. Take a look at the article on Hillary Clinton's Senate career, and you'll see a marked difference in the style - namely that the people over there wrote paragraphs about what she did, rather than just itemizing. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 01:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Ron Paul. The other candidates have articles on this topic, but they're written in more of a prose form rather than just a straight list. Obama's career is on his main article, Rick Santorum's career is on his page, and Hillary has a separate page for her Senate career. I'd like to see this page merged with the main Ron Paul page and only the most important/contentious legislation listed. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t · c ] 01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge would disrespect the consensus of converting Ron Paul more into summary style. This page is modeled after Clinton's and Kerry's, and it is in prose style. Your merge proposal was in fact the former consensus, until length became prohibitive. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, very interesting. Too large to merge with the main article and too important to delete. I have no problems with this article, it organizes its information well and is clear on its purpose, unlike Ron Paul Revolution. If there are some duplicates in other places like the main article, it would probably help to move that information to this article. Ron Paul is large enough.-- S    TX   04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per nomination. This truly falls under the department of redundancy department.Umbralcorax (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM: "Where a nomination has been effectively addressed by counter-arguments in the discussion, however, it may be useful to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshaling your own evidence." John J. Bulten (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's like you want them to come back with a more vehement response, John. --- tqbf  01:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The nomination fails to recognize the general consensus of the Ron Paul editors that more of that article should be broken out into subarticles under WP:SUMMARY style, as Ron Paul is seeking FA status. The Legislation article is a direct result of that discussion, as mooted here and here. After creation I called editors' attention to the new article again and again with no objections. The "redundancy" is merely due to the fact that the "Legislation" section of Ron Paul has not yet been converted to a short summary (3 or 4 short paragraphs) as I repeatedly advertised. Contrary to nominator's perception, the entire contents of the Legislation section were incorporated into the Legislation article-- the section does not contain "greater depth", the article does; especially as it comprises, into one place, some content from several other sources noted in TEN different articles on independent pieces of Paul's legislation. Therefore the article is, appropriately, the greater depth. Finally, there is NO other duplicative source where the legislation is not only described but discussed neutrally as per sources. This article comprises the best of WP's collation of source analysis of Paul's bills (as collected at Ron Paul and elsewhere). Such an article is widely sought and not available anywhere else. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Evan S  • talk | sign here 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM again. Actually, because these are per-noms, all four delete comments to date have "merge" elements. So the problem is not content but placement. However, the deletion would ignore the standing consensus to split, which this article and others are attempting to carry out; the proper placement is in this article, with most of Ron Paul 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. I would appreciate the prior commenters reviewing my links above and 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) 00:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SIZE and normal subarticle policies.--Duchamps_comb 02:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment --- Not for nothing (I'm a keep), but, WP:SIZE isn't the "universal keep trump card" you seem to think it is. (1) splitting an article into subarticles is one cure for an overlong article, but not the only one, and (2) even if an article merits subarticles (as the RP campaign clearly does), that doesn't make every possible subarticle equally appropriate. --- tqbf  21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's well sourced, notable, and clearly too long to be in the main Ron Paul article. I see no reason to delete. Buspar (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as an appropriate use of a daughter article to reduce clutter in the main article without depriving the reader of information. Burzmali asks above, "Exactly how is a bill that has ~0% of even making it to a vote on the House floor arguably notable?"  No one is contending that each proposed bill is notable by itself.  Any bill that is notable should have its own article (as well as being included here).  The point is that Ron Paul is notable, and his decisions about what bills to introduce shed light on him. JamesMLane t c 07:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this entire article could be summarized as "Ron Paul has submitted a ton of legislation to Congress. To date, his only significant success has been to pass a concurrent resolution congratulating NASA.  No bill he has ever submitted has made it to the House floor for a vote."  I guess I am having a hard time understanding how a bill that Ron Paul proposed 5 times only to let it die in committee each time, is notable.  Burzmali (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As stated, the scope is not limited to bills submitted by Paul, as it also includes his cosponsorships of successful legislation and mentions significant votes. As stated, the notability of individual bills is irrelevant to deletion of the article. As stated, I would appreciate your source for your absolute statement "no bill", as your Thomas link does not source your claim. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Obvious notability, as the workings of the United States government as well as a certain person running for POTUS should have extensive pages on Wikipedia. - Shark face  217  20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Political positions of Ron Paul. After thinking about it, since all of this bills have died or will die (no need for a crystal ball with RP's batting average) in committee, realistically any bill that Ron Paul submits is really just a statement of his political position on an issue.  Therefore, I believe that this article should be carefully combined with Political positions of Ron Paul by adding each significant bill that he has proposed to the appropriate section.  Burzmali (talk) 21:03, 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.