Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul (3rd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not warrant its own article. No other legislator has an article for legislation they have sponsored, as far as I can tell. Notable legislation already discussed in depth at Ron Paul. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC) This is what we have THOMAS for. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per NYyankees51. Also, there's way too much Ron Paul-worship here already.  --Nlu (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Ron Paul is an odd politician so there is interest in the legislation he sponsored. The level of worship is not a Wikipedia criteria for delete or keep; witness the worship of video game articles that the average adult has no interest or knowledge of.  For most politicians, this article is not right but Paul is a weirdo.  The other possibility is merge but merge would just result in delete of the information...that's the way Wikipedia is. Spevw (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oddness is not a Wikipedia criteria for delete or keep either.— Chris! c / t 20:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per concensus established in the two previous Afds (This is the same article, it was retitled "List of...." in July 2008). Article hasn't significantly changed since previous discussions. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Why don't we have articles like this for Ted Kennedy or Charlie Rangel or Nancy Pelosi or all the other wingnuts who have been around for decades? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A lot of work has gone in to creating this article. If it's possible to merge it in to another existing Ron Paul article then that should be done. But I think that there's too much content to merge in to another article.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 01:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I know a lot of work has gone into the article and I hate dumping people's stuff out the window but unfortunately that doesn't give it notability. Most of it is non-notable so it wouldn't be too much to merge the notable stuff. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The majority of Paul's proposed legislation was never passed into law, nor did it ever impact the political environment in Washington, so where is the notability? Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Did anyone besides JayJasper read the prior two AFDs, after which a third nomination for the same reasons is questionable at minimum? NYyankees51, this article is a breakout of the WP:SUMMARY in Ron Paul, as agreed since 2007 to manage this degree of notable content. To your argument from WP:OTHERSTUFF, the previous AFD mentioned similar still-extant articles for Clinton, Romney, Giuliani, and Kerry; the folks you mention would also be good candidates for such articles. Notability is demonstrated by the number of sources, both those in the header that affirm notability of Paul's body of work generally, and those that discuss specific accomplishments. To Nlu, I affirm Spevw. To Regent, the notability of proposed legislation has long been judged by WP:GNG and found sufficient in many many cases. Incidentally, due to the 112th, many of the numbers will need updating (and Audit the Fed, both 111th and 112th, is still insufficiently covered per new sources), but that's a fixit need and should not affect anyone's views. JJB 21:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep although I think this article skirts WP:NOTADIR. It would be better cast as a general subarticle on Paul's congressional career, akin to those in Category:Tenures in political office by individual.  The only really similar article to this that I know of is Sponsorship of legislation by John Kerry, which was created during the 2004 presidential election and has been thoroughly ignored ever since (averages about four page views a day; the Ron Paul one does a bit better).  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Turns out I was wrong, there are two others: List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate, List of bills sponsored by John McCain in the United States Senate. So, I've created a new category for them, Category:Lists of United States federal legislation by sponsor, and placed this one in it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Just because other politicians don't have lists doesn't make such lists a bad thing, per WP:OTHERSTUFF.  The point is that this section, if incorporated (as the nominator suggests) into the main Ron Paul article, would make said article inaccessible and worse for it.  Per WP:SPINOUT, separating to another article is the right thing to do.  Hence, this article must be kept. Bastin 00:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I would venture to say that all lists of sponsorships should be deleted/merged, except maybe for Obama since he is the president. This is what we have THOMAS for; Wikipedia does not need these lists. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yank, THOMAS is for bare lists, WP is for encyclopedic weighting and discussion of the listed items. Several of these items are terrifically notable enough to have their own articles (more could), while others are merely legislative suggestions Paul reinvokes every two years that never get covered (e.g., raw milk), which are instead appropriate for list inclusion. Reliable sources cover much more information on legislation lists than would fit in most bio articles, this is what we have WP:SPINOUT for. JJB 02:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:OTHERSTUFF. just because this might be a list which is unusal doesnt make it worthy for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2011 (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.