Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances

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 Close non-notable listcruft. Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances

List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page has no encyclopedic content. Its a mere list of non-Notable appearances. Just another Ron Paul fan-page

• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Despite my love for lists I would have to say that it violates
  WP:SAL that makes me think it is anything more than a directory and political fan-cruft. Earthdirt (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Agree with the above comment.. we don't need to know about every single appearence that ron paul has ever made... everything could be summed up with ron paul had been on various talk shows to give his point of views on various topics such as.... blah blah blah.. one paragraph on the ron paul campaign article would be sufficient. This article is not needed. -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above as well as a general reading of
  WP:IINFO: merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom. Entirely
  WP:FANCRUFT. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment In light of the current merge discussion, this AfD is out of place. I say Merge, at the least. Buspar (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you suggesting that any AfD discussion can be short-circuited by one person's decision to move content around the encyclopedia? --- tqbf 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd submit that the closing admin should take some note of the discussion regarding the proposed merge, but that this debate (rightly) trumps it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, also want to point out that AfD's collect more diverse feedback than a talk page merge discussion --- this debate is a far better indicator than any "consensus" formed in the RP talk pages. --- tqbf 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Buspar, this article is up for DELETION due to it being a LIST.. why do you keep merging it into the main ron paul campain article.. as yet another LIST. let an admin decide what should happen. -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merge discussion predates this AfD. Since the merge discussion resulted in a consensus of merge, it was merged and cleaned up. This AfD only relates to the final fate of the separate article, not whether it should be in the main one. I suggest reading more on Wiki's procedures before you're banned for violating

WP:3RR and edit warring. Buspar (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It's entirely possible that I missed it in today's talk page rush, but where is this consensus to merge? (I see that it was discussed, but I'm not sure I would call that a consensus.) --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, better than deletion. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you elaborate on your position? Thanks. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? I don't see any need to. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - How will this be considered encyclopedic 50 years from now .... given that notability never expires? Merge is not an option because this information is inherently not encyclopedic. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure listcruft. --- tqbf 06:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everybody. But look on the bright side - now that it's 2008, we can look forward to ALL KINDS OF NEW CRAP like this popping up! Isn't it just too fun to think about? Ψν^Psi_nu 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list too far, even for me. Nick mallory (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, I'm looking forward to Paul crashing out of the race just to stop the flood of Roncruft articles. Lankiveil (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Ridiculous on the face of it. Ron Paul is actually running a legit campaign with some legit accomplishments, but his fanboy WP editors continue to try to build him up with silly articles like these, as though he's a 1% no-hoper. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I like Ron Paul, but seriously? A list of his appearances?Reinoe (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do NOT merge. Like someone above said, pure listcruft. --Calton | Talk 15:02, 2 January 2008 (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.