Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism


 * 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 speedy deletion under CSD G7 by Hbdragon88. Non-admin closure. --Goobergunch|? 11:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was originally created as a separation from Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, but was merged back with a consensus of editors. The article was PROD'd, but that was removed. There's not enough here for the article to stand on its own, and separating out criticism sections is just awkward. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not enough content, and it may be construed as a POV fork. Terjen (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete --- disputed branch, duplicated content, orphaned article. This article is an artifact of a content dispute. --- tqbf  18:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep--Duchamps_comb MFA 20:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This isn't a vote. You must provide a reason as to why this should be kept. --RucasHost (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This was to be a Redirect.--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not a practical redirect. No one is going to search for "Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 criticism". It doesn't meet the criteria for redirects under typos or misnomers. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment --- Duchamps, if you don't mean for this to be an article, can you say so so we can close this AfD up quickly? I don't think any of us meant to go through the whole process for this page. If consensus on talk says we split out criticisms, we'll do it, otherwise I think we're all happy not to. --- tqbf  18:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment an AfD is fine with me, we'll make it an article.--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an obvious POV fork. --Elonka 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fits fine on original page, no reason to have this duplicate. Could be construed as POV fork, per above. Fin©™ 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, per all above. Merge to main article. Arny (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment --- sigh once again, Duchamps is canvassing. --- tqbf  20:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I warned him about it before, but he seems to have ignored that. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge If Paul's campaign developments, appearances, and debate performances were deemed unworthy of having their own articles, this certainly doesn't merit one either. Buspar (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this content has already been "merged", and virtually all editing of the underlying content continues on the main page and not Duchamps fork. It's really pretty annoying that Duchamps didn't simply concede the PROD. 21:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tqbf (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - strong POV fork, grossly inappropriate, leaves undue weight on worshipful coverage of Paul minutia with criticism tucked away out of sight. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Obvious POV fork. --RucasHost (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Admin, close this AfD. It was really meant to be a redirect, not a page. I think wp:snow would be OK with me.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --- tqbf  01:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article was deleted as a CSD. So... I guess this should be closed. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 06:15, 12 January 2008 (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.