Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 07:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Rand Paul

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Son of Ron Paul who might run for senate in 2010. No reference to independent 3rd party sources in article. No apparent notability of his own, all the Google news hits I read were about his father's Presidential campaign. Burzmali (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Burzmali
 * Lots of people who may run for office don't have wikipedia pages and just because someone is the child of someone notable doesn't make them notable. Garynine (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: What a load of crock. The page accurately describes one of the leaders of the liberty movement. Rand is a spokeperson in his own right, and is seriously considering a run. In addition, the Kentucky news is full of articles about the run. If you had just taken the time to look at Google news this to be so. This is a one-sided broadside against an ideology with which you disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathani1 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried to search for coverage, but failed to find any relevant reliable secondary sources. Please help out. It looks like a subject that should be able to pass WP:NOTABILITY. Nsaa (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: WP:TWINKLE apparently failed to add this to the AFD log when this AFD page was created on 3/30. I added it to the 4/1 log by hand. Burzmali (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Offspring of notable politician. Only potential sources I found were speculating about his potential run for the U.S. Senate, which fails WP:CRYSTAL. -Atmoz (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep (ec): There are plenty of sources on Rand as an independent notable. He has been an outspoken advocate in Kentucky for many years. Some of the sources were in the Ron Paul article already in 2007 back when there were talks about spinning out family members. Further, nominator has a habit of proposing AfD related to Ron Paul as documented here and so his AfD choices are demonstrably not neutral. I'd rather not turn this into a sourcing war the week before Passover, so would appreciate concurrence in my opinion. If, however, the deletionists win again, the content should be moved or merged to a Kentucy senate election of 2010 article, per many precedents I can quote. Thanks. JJB 16:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Not to start an argument, but when an requests like this one show up shortly before an article is created, it isn't hard to connect the dots.  I suppose we can heap WP:ADVERT on to the pile of reasons for deletion.  Burzmali (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Son of a notable figure and a possible candidate for a future election does not meet WP:NOTABILITY Bacchus87 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per WP:SOURCE and WP:NOTABILITY. With more reliable secondary sources the article may reach WP:NOTABILITY. Nsaa (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete major WP:SOURCE problems here. JBsupreme (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know about no liberty movement, but a quick Google search gives plenty of sources, including a few articles from the LA Times that seem to establish notability. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I originally created this page as a redirect to Ron Paul. If the the outcome of this AfD is 'Delete', content should be moved to Ron Paul and a redirect put in place. However, the Ron Paul page is already long enough... -- Big Brother 1984 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I found lots of notable hits on google. I think his hits get drowned out by Paul Rand showing in Rand Paul's search. I get a few hits on the first page and many more on the second and third search page. 96.248.7.243 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this Google News Search . Until Rand starts getting press that is independent of this father, I would argue that he does not have the notability to warrant an article.  Burzmali (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable doctor and potenital candidate for office for the remote chance that the incumbent who stated he would seek reelection drops out. The article fails to establish notability, notability is not automatically conferred from dad to son. Hekerui (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for now, with no prejudice against re-creation if and when more sources become available. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- I've seen the article has been re-written, and went back to take a look. The problem now is I'm still not convinced o his notablity. Not many of the sources actually seemed to discuss Rand in detail, more were about Ron, quite frankly. So, the re-write, while admirable, hasn't changed my vote. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed at the number of comments on lack of sources. Did ANY of you bother to do a cursory Google News search? The very first page lists valid Paul articles in these not insignificant publications (not to mention numerous national news outlets such as Fox News): The Los Angeles Times, Evening News and Tribune, Louisville Courier-Journal, and Huntington Herald Dispatch. How many articles would suffice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathani1 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. His activies as a spokesman for the liberty movement are well documented, and the article has much potential for expansion (whether or not he runs for the Senate in '10). If the article is not kept, I second Big Brother 1984's suggestion to revert to the redirect to Ron Paul (or redirect to United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2010). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayJasper (talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 April 2009


 * Comment: At this point, I seriously overhauled the article, and I believe it is appropriate to inform the "delete" voters of this fact (one of whom contacted me unsolicited, in fact). Please note, e.g., the Lexington Herald-Leader and Kentucky Post mentioning his 1996 awards, and the KULR-TV (Billings MT) article that is fully about Rand and only mentions Ron in two sentences. When I came across this heavily-loaded search, including another Bowling Green Daily News piece on ophthalmology, I realized I am not going to finish this tonight. I haven't even touched the Senate election. I affirm Jonathani1's observation about the lack of any real argumentation on the "delete" side; one argument looks to me like arguing from a Google on "'william pitt the younger' -'william pitt'". Fact is, we have now gone way past being the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject; anyone could have done that at any time; and I have, in the interim, tolerated the giant cavernous echo chamber of fallacious attempts to trump the basic notability criterion by redirecting to WP:POLITICIAN, WP:PEOPLE, (WP:ADVERT?!,) and WP:RUBBISH, only to demonstrate satisfactorily to myself the flaws in the WP process. Now, as I shut up, I'd appreciate it if we could close this as "keep" instead of "no consensus default keep", if you don't mind. JJB 07:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Yes the article looks a whole lot better, but it hasn't done anything to establish his notability.  The links you added the Lexington Herald-Leader are broken and the Kentucky Post article makes doesn't even mention him in the teaser.  The KULR-TV article is about Rand stumping for Ron.  Not one of the articles listed in the article in from significant new source and specifically about Rand Paul, and his political activism, without mentioning it as a subset of his fathers. The Personal Life section makes up 5 of the 11 paragraphs of the article after you cleaned it up.  Burzmali (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sir, the only good faith I have left for you is that you mean well in spite of your intent. JJB 17:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable activist, well-sourced article. --darolew 23:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Per article overhaul. Gage (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Since I commented before and was not in favor of the article I think that since now I see more sources and a better idea of who he is seperate from Ron Paul I think it's worth keeping. Garynine (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2009 (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.