Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul (4th 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 merge to Political positions of Ron Paul. There's clear consensus here to not keep this. Between the possibilities of delete, merge, or redirect, there's no real agreement. Merge seems like a reasonable compromise. I do note that the sole argument to keep was, at least in part, based on arguments put forth in earlier AfDs. Given that those AfDs were 7 or more years ago, it seems like they shouldn't carry much weight today. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:CONTENTFORK. An enormous part of this article is either unsourced or poorly sourced. At this point, this Wikipedia page just looks it's a mirror of one of Ron Paul's personal websites. What little sourced content on this page which does not already exist on Political positions of Ron Paul and Ron Paul can simply be merged with those two pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Political positions of Ron Paul. When someone has been in government for a long time, they are bound to sponsor legislation (hopefully!). The legislation feeds into the political positions, makes more sense for the two to be in one article. Bkissin (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any time an article is listed again for deletion after having been kept, the nominator really needs to read those discussions carefully and respond to the arguments raised in them, not act as if they are the first to speak. The prior AFD discussions clearly kept this as a WP:SPINOUT, and article splitting is clearly endorsed by the sole guideline the nominator cites (without explanation as to why he thinks it calls for deletion here). It is not a POV fork nor redundant to any existing article. As for sourcing, the vast majority of entries clearly identify the bill in question. Those entries that do not can obviously be improved, or if proven not verifiable, removed. So as I see no valid argument for deletion here, keep. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We need RS to demonstrate WP:DUE for those bills. We don't just add every single bill, no matter trivial it is to Wikipedia just because it's a bill. I will add a comment that specifically addresses past RfCs (the last of which was 8 yrs ago). -- Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd day that "just because" is a terrible reason for keeping an article. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Elaboration on why I want this deleted: I've been asked to comment on the three past RfCs (which occurred between 2007-2011, i.e. during Paul's presidential campaigns). The first RfC (Dec 2007) wanted a merge with Ron Paul but most respondents insisted the main article was too large to be merged. None of the editors, except the last respondent in the AfD, considered merging it with Political positions of Ron Paul which can easily accommodate whatever non-redundant and well-sourced content exists in this one (Pol Pos of RP is also filled with poorly sourced text). In the second RfC (April 2008), the filer argued for deletion for JUSTDONTLIKEIT-style reasons and wanted a merger with the main article. 'Keep' editors point out the weak reasons for deletion, point to the old 'Keep' consensus, and reiterate that the main article is too long to accommodate this content. Several of the 'Keep' votes seem bizarre, as they insist that the content covered in the article is notable for the mere fact that Ron Paul is notable (much of the specific content fails the most basic WP:DUE standards that are now in place in editing on American politics: no RS). The third RfC (Jan 2011) wanted a merge with the main article, and some of the 'delete' votes appear motivated by a dislike for Paul (and his fans) whereas numerous 'Keep' votes insist that because Paul is himself notable that all of this legislation must be too. So, looking over these RfCs, the first reaction is "Wow, Wikipedia sure has changed". The difference between my RfC and the ones from a decade ago is that I'm very clearly and explicitly noting that most of the content on this page does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia because it's either unsourced or poorly sourced and thus fails WP:RS and WP:DUE (arguments that no one explicitly laid out). The content that exists on this page could never be included on an American politics page with a sizable readership today because WE.DO.NOT.ALLOW.UNSOURCED/PRIMARY.CONTENT. Also, it needs to be kept in mind that Paul was at the time running for president, so while all this poorly sourced content may have seemed incredibly important back then, it sure isn't today. I also don't want to criticize the people who voted in those RfCs but it has to be said that I was struck by how few of the 'keep' or 'delete' votes seemed policy-based. Maybe the standards have just gotten stricter in the last 10 yrs in American politics. If WP:SIZE is a problem for merging, then the solution would simply be to scrub both Political positions of Ron Paul and List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul of all poorly sourced content (and there is a lot). The two articles could then easily be merged without fear of violating WP:SIZE, and I would even bet that the merged article would be smaller than either of two status quo articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're conflating two things: "unsourced primary content" is an oxymoron because primary sources are sources. What purpose they are reliable for is no more complicated really than secondary sources, and government documents are certainly available to the public and verifiable (a cite to a bill is just another form of legal citation). So if we are just sourcing that the bill exists with certain content and that Paul was its sponsor (not using the bill's content to make claims about the external world), then the primary source is not only reliable but authoritative. Now whether that bill is notable would depend on secondary sources existing that discuss it. There is no requirement that entries in a list be individually notable (though at least some of those here would be).
  I don't see that WP:DUE necessarily applies here, because as I read that it's more about the weight of POV rather than the level of objective detail about a topic. I do think that there's a reasonable question about where to draw the line regarding which politician merits this kind of list, but we shouldn't base that just on the present state of his political career rather than its peak, and this kind of page is not inherently problematic because it's clearly verifiable (though I don't know how easily to make comprehensive) and WP:NOTPAPER. postdlf (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Political positions of Ron Paul. Per nom. Listcruft and hero-worshipping, and I see little evidence that the legislation Paul has attached his name to -- as an actual topic -- has gained any media or historical traction. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this kind of in-depth treatment is necessarily hero-worship; a critic of a politician may be just as likely to want to document what they've been involved with as a supporter. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Political positions of Ron Paul. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Political positions of Ron Paul of the sponsoring that's actually relevant. Functionally all politicians sponsor laws - we don't need lists for all of them, even those laws/sponsoring that get coverage. Merging will be tough - The Political positions article is pretty big, but the relevant sponsoring is going to have to be dragged out a couple at a time and dropped into the appropriate spot. There is already a bit of duplication. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the 3rd AfD has some of the weirdest Keep justifications I've ever seen accepted. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is mindless trivia by somebody who was never a serious national candidate. This is a list of legislation by a legislator ideologically adverse to legislating. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.