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


 * 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 merged and redirected (by User:Buspar) to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Non-admin closure, yada yada. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul presidential campaign developments, 2008

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was split off from Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 and is yet another unnecessary Ron Paul page. The contents could have been contained in the parent article with some editing but are instead bloated with crufty accounts of radio appearances and Meetup.com activities. See earlier AfDs  and. Delete, do not merge. Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even former candidate presidential pages (such as Tom Tancredo) have campaign development sections. Deletion without a merger is clearly inappropriate as it flies in the face of current Wiki formatting standards. The closing admin should make note of this attempt to bootstrap the improper deletion of an article section (campaign developments) with this AfD, which pertains only to whether the section should exist as a separate subarticle. Buspar (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't with the section. The problem is with this redundant article. All campaign articles should have a "campaign developments" section but not a separate "campaign developments" article.-- S    TX   06:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree (hence my merge vote). However, several editors, such as tqbf, are arguing that if the AfD here results in deletion then that means the campaign developments section from the main presidential article should also be permanently removed. My statement is that the closing admin should note whether this bootstrapping is appropriate or not. I argue it isn't; I'm glad you agree. Buspar (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is WP:FANCRUFT all the way. Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 has more than everything that's needed. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. One campaign article is enough, no need for daughter articles. If the Clinton and Obama and Romney and Huckabee and all the other editors can manage it, so too can the Ron Paul editors.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as violation of WP:NOT --Hnsampat (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not one to support fancruft, but this appears to be a well cited account of notable events. I think it satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements and should be kept. Pilotbob (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete --- of course much of the content is notable; notability isn't the issue, sprawl is. Instead of editing Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 --- which would require that RP supporters remove such important content as "how many World of Warcraft users have named their characters after Ron Paul" and "which community college professors have endorsed Ron Paul" and "where can the enlightened Wikipedia reader go to find the discussion forum for the Hotties-4-Ron-Paul calendar" --- RP content has instead metastasized into many other articles across the WP. Here's another interesting metric: we are now 5 days in to 2008, and the "2008 developments" article has eighteen paragraphs. This is the dictdef of undue weight, which is why these articles consistently die in AfD. --- tqbf  17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per tqbf, Wasted Time R, etc al. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. However, I would note that most of the content of this article consists of descriptions of activities which took place in 2007, which explains why it has 18 paragraphs by January 5. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Sean MD80 talk 21:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as WP:Fancruft Xdenizen (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - This was split off due to size reasons in the parent. Since those have been handled, this should be reintegrated into the main article where it belongs (I've already done so, per the earlier merge discussion). Contents are wholly notable, given the general formatting of every other presidential article, which lists major developments. Buspar (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Content that can't possibly make sense without continuous updates (such as a "list of 2008 events" that ends at January 5th) is inherently unencyclopedic: you're writing a newpaper (or worse, an almanac), not an encyclopedia article. I think everyone working in good faith here realizes that even if Jupiter aligns with Pluto and Paul is elected, virtually all of this content will be jettisoned. Let's take it, and the notion that Wikipedia should carry up-to-the-moment news of campaigns, and kill it off while it's easy. --- tqbf  23:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Campaign developments is a standard part of a presidential article. Without it, the article isn't even about the campaign! Read the other candidate pages (ex. Duncan Hunter and Rudy Giuliani) and you'll see that including a section of this type is a matter of proper formatting and content. You're basically arguing that the core of the article - the official campaign - is unencyclopedic, and that's just silly. The content has already been merged and culled for redundancy. Removing it from the main article would clearly be contrary to the purposes of writing an article about the campaign. Buspar (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * delete - Crufty and not worthy of a separate article. After coming in 5th in Wyoming, I hope we can assume that there will be no more campaign developments for him in 2008. Or should we keep the article around until he drops out in New Hampshire? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiki is not a crystal ball and neither are you. Votes should be based on historical value, which is not impacted even if Ron Paul were to drop out tomorrow. Buspar (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Terraxos (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The editor who created this article readded to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 the text from this article here. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to delete it. :) Terraxos (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

*Comment, I think editors should also be aware that the article Ron Paul presidential debates, 2008 also exists and that perhaps it too should be brought to AFD.-- S    TX   04:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) It has been merged. -- S    TX   04:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant.-- S    TX   04:39, 6 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.