Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul Online Rally and Photo Mosaic


 * 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. W.marsh 16:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Online Rally and Photo Mosaic

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails notability guidelines Proper tea is theft 04:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(Removed comments that were copied and pasted from article talk page by anon because they broke the formatting; you can view these comments here or here on the talk page. --Proper tea is theft 04:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete unless third party sources can be found. May be worth a short mention on Paul's article but not as a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 04:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable References to the Ron Paul Online Rally and Photo Mosaic

( For the wikipedia editors that keeps trying to delete this article because the site is supposedly "not notable". )


 * Washington Post "The Trail" Article with large photo of Presidential Candidate Paul holding Poster containing the Mosaic
 * Mosaic Mention in the California Chronicle
 * Blog Article: From Grassroots, Great Things Grow
 * Digg Reference, 303 Diggs
 * Americans United for Liberty PAC with Mosaic Flier
 * Wooden Puzzles being built from Mosaic image, and posters
 * Blog entry about Full Page Mosaic Ad in Ames Tribune
 * Satirical Article about Ron Paul Mosaic by "The Spoof"
 * TV Ad for Ron Paul, featuring Mosaic
 * Third Party Site that makes additional mosaic images using Rally source photos

There, is that NOTABLE enough for you?

I also NOTE that none of you have bothered to respond to a single point that I've made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.156.92 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making personal attacks, like calling people Nazis for nominating an article for deletion. TJ Spyke 04:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it does become a bit personal when you propose to delete hours of work, with basically zero explanation, and a total refusal to answer any objections raised. In any event, I've retracted the comment. But I do still stand by my formal petition that Wikipedia remove my name from the RSS article if you delete this one. Quite frankly, I wouldn't want to be associated with, or referenced by, this encyclopedia after I've found out how newcomers are treated. It feels like I'm on trial. Well I'm sick of it. Go ahead, delete all you like. Just don't do it "personally" please.

If your article on trial process somehow decides NOT to delete the article (using whatever arbitrary criteria you define and inconsistently apply to make something NOTABLE), please feel free to email me, and I'll be happy to continue updating the article.

Good bye. --200.122.156.92 05:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Godwin's Law appears quite early in this debate. Mike would be proud... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as I look at the links one by one: The Washinton Post link contains NO text which talks about this website, thus it seems to easily fail the non-trivial mention part of WP:N and WP:WEB guidelines. The California Chronicle article contains a VERY short blip about it, again seems like a trivial mention.  The spirit76 is a blog, and thus not a reliable source.  Likewise, Digg is a user edited sight, and do not reliable.  The United for Liberty site shows the mosaic for sale.  Being availible for purchase does not make something notable.  Grandpuzzle.com is again simply advertising the product for sale.  Grannymiller is a blog, and thus unreliable.  The Spoof also seems rather unreliable.  And the TV ad is self-promotional advertising, and thus also cannot be used to establish notability.  SO so far, we only have references that establish that the website and mosaic EXIST, but not that they are NOTABLE.  If they are notable, there will be NONTRIVIAL writing about the subject appearing in RELIABLE SOURCES.  We seem to lack both of these requirements, as yet.  I am willing to be convinced otherwise if evidence is provided, though calling me a Nazi isn't a great way to win an arguement.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Promotional, non-notable website. Keb25 05:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or weak merge to Ron Paul. Coverage is trivial and does not meet WP:N. Torc2 05:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Lacks reliable sources, fails to establish notability.  Lara  ❤  Love  05:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see, Wikipedia is not printed, so I guess it is not a reliable source either. Hmmm.... you guys may be on to something after all. Washington Post has an AP Photo that was taken which features the PRINTED mosaic, which was PRINTED in the Ames Tribune based on voluntary contributions. But I guess the AP is an unreliable source, and that was all photoshopped together somehow. Gee, it was pretty big news when a FireFox ad was PRINTED in the New York Times based on voluntary contribs. I'll bet that's covered somewhere in this NON-PRINTED wikipedia unreliable source. GrandPuzzle is working on a CARVED OUT OF WOOD version of the mosaic which you could say is a form of MANUAL PRINTING. Oh, and wait, they are selling PRINTED copies of the poster. But I guess the printer downloaded it from an "unreliable source", so screw that. GrannyMiller and spirt76 blogs are unreliable, right... I guess I should just shutup and get my news from Time Magazine then? or Fox News maybe? Great, looking forward to becoming reliably informed. You say the TV Ad is self-promotional advertising... that's an interesting twist, since the TV Ad is promoting Ron Paul, and was created by a group that has zero ties to either Ron Paul or this Mosaic website. Self-Promotional, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... head scratching. Guess I'll have to go find a reliable printed source to explain that logic to me -- clearly nothing else will do.

Convince you? I've no desire to do that. Convince your own self.

The show's over. You can all go back to doing whatever you normally do to entertain yourselves, when you're not playing power games with Wikipedia newcomers, and turning them against the project.

--200.122.156.92 05:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is certainly not a reliable source. Part of its purpose is to guide readers towards reliable sources. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Jayron. Um, I don't see anyone implying that sources must be printed to show notability.  Nor do I see anyone implying that anything printed asserts notability.  The anonymous editor commenting here, however, seems to be arguing that essentially anything not printed asserts notability.  Odd. Maxamegalon2000 06:03, 17 October 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.