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 keep and improve. Discussion of any possible merger can continue on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Ron Paul movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Doesn't have anything to do with drafting Ron Paul. It's basically just a summary of his campaigns and short list of supporters. Nothing here that warrants a separate article; any useful content can be merged into the Ron Paul article. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article combines pieces from his 2008 article with wishful thinking about 2012. --B (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a WP:USPE member who has worked on draft-movement articles for several candidates, I find it clear that the subject movement is notable. Both objectors refer only to its misstated focus, in that it says it's about drafting (and particularly 2012), but includes much material relating to the 2008 run rather than the 2007 draft movement. There was also a notable draft movement in 2003-4 2001, when Paul declined to run. The lede stating that the movement is only about 2012 is mistaken. I may have time to fix these errors quickly, but I am not guaranteeing it (done); however, the discussion turns not on the current misweighted state of the article, but on whether there is sufficient reliable-source coverage to warrant a separate article, which there is. Note: the nominator also subsequently nominated another Paul-related article that had survived two prior AFDs, which is not evidence of unclouded intentions, especially given the timing of these noms in the election cycle. JJB 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The nominator's motivations are immaterial. I stated eight months ago on the article's talk page that it did not address its purported subject and that it was AfD-able. In the time since there have been no efforts, by you or anyone else, to improve the situation. And as I point out below, the article is now being overtaken by events. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My review indicates what has happened is that this article contains much material that relates instead to the redirect Ron Paul Revolution (a section of Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008). RPR was AFD'd immediately after creation, with a closure of "delete" (no GFDL issue because copied from merge target), and then a rapid recreate as redirect, supporting the AFD's potential for being interpreted as merge consensus. At that AFD, Wasted abstained, and I predicted that RPR would someday merit its own article; and the content of the present article largely supports that theory. Thus I judge Wasted's concerns to be WP:SOFIXITs, and the path forward seems to be (1) move much content either to a new RPR article or the current redirected section, and (2) add sources on the 2003-4 and 2007 movements, as well as on the senatorial draft movement, which is also a "Draft Ron Paul movement". I will be working on (2) first. JJB 20:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per JJB. Subject is notable and article is reliably sourced. Per his comments, there may be room for improvement and cleanup, but not grounds for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there enough to warrant a whole article for it? There are draft movements for all sorts of people. Even if you do improve it, I don't see why it can't be merged into the Ron Paul article. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – By its opening paragraph, the article claims to be about "a grassroots effort to convince United States Congressman Ron Paul of Texas to run for president in the 2012 U.S. presidential election." In fact, almost nothing in the article addresses this subject; instead it's just a completely unnecessary rehash of his 2008 campaign (all of which is already covered in Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008) with a few mentions of his 2010 campaigning for others and some opinion polls thrown in (both of which can be covered in Ron Paul). Furthermore, this article is already badly out of date; the real speculation for 2012 is no longer Paul running for president again but instead running for the open senatorial seat from Texas: see here and here and here and here and so on. Paul has no chance to ever be elected president, but he has a real chance to be elected senator, something that can be covered in the United States Senate election in Texas, 2012 article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Per JJB. Gage (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If there are sources covering the topic, and the problems seen by the nominator can be fixed through editing, then there is no cause to delete the article. The lead paragraph can be edited to clarify what the article is about. This topic is clearly covered by reliable sources, and if the article was edited to include all of the appropriate information, would overwhelm the proposed merger target. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for the Article Rescue Squadron to review. SnottyWong ^communicate 18:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wasted Time above. This article is not actually about any grassroots effort. No prejudice against re-creating the article from scratch if it can actually be focused on the grassroots efforts (assuming enough sources are available for such an article). SnottyWong ^communicate 18:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snotty, I have just obliged you with eight new sources about the 2001-4 and 2006-8 grassroots Draft Ron Paul movements, to say nothing of the 2012 president or Senate races, right off the first page of Google. Digression: I don't understand something. I keep finding myself "keep"ing for articles with 30 sources and heaping additional sources on them to overcome AFD "delete" objections, while I also keep finding myself "delete"ing for articles with 2.5 sentences in 3 sources and requesting additional sources for them to overcome AFD "keep" objections, and I still find new folks debating me on both sides all the time. If anyone can help me understand why I'm so often on the "wrong" side of AFDs, please advise at my talk. JJB 20:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The work done on the article so far is good, but I'm still not seeing how this deserves its own article, especially when only a few references that I can tell explicitly mention a grassroots draft movement. Most are just political speculation. This can easily be merged, as there is a lot of redundancy. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I share this concern about the loose definition of "draft" (and hence the dubious rationale for the article). For example, the article currently says "Paul has been drafted both for U.S. Senate[21][22][23][24] ..." Yet none of those four cites says anything about a "draft", either explicitly or implicitly. In reality, the possibility of Paul running for Senate comes from purely conventional, non-draft reasons. The incumbent Republican isn't running again, the seat has opened up, and both national ideological trends (Tea Party) and personal factors (his son got elected to the Senate) make Paul a quite viable candidate. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per nominator.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis: All, there is much miscommunication going on, and AFD is the place to settle it. E.g., I put in the four Senate links because they are Wasted's own links, as above, and I inferred they were relevant. (If Wasted is instead saying that Paul has no chance and the draft is not "real", that is a WP:CRYSTAL argument repeatedly defeated in 2007-8 AFDs). Further, since notability of the topic, per se, seems so obvious, I presumed it is acceptable for the article to have other sources that are not intended directly to show notability but to provide context (e.g., Paul's comments to Fox about running are relevant and should not remain deleted). So let's start again and establish, clearly communicated, what this article is about. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below

The four Senate links were to show that the article was out of date, because the attention lately has been to him running for the Senate instead of for President. Paul does indeed have a real chance of being elected Senator. But you have shown no evidence that he is being "drafted" to run for Senate. Any time a Senate seat opens up, political people look to visible House members as possible replacements, take polls to evaluate their chances, etc. There is no difference between what's happening here with Paul than with dozens of other potential candidates in every election cycle.

The underlying assumption of this article seems to be that by definition, whenever Paul runs for an office, or thinks about running for an office, it is because he is being "drafted". I think this completely misunderstands the traditional meaning of a political draft.

Anyway, commenting on this AfD and editing this article has just reminded me of what I already knew from four years ago: there are few if any common points of reference when dealing with Paulites and chances of agreement on anything are slim. My verdict on this article is still delete but I will stop commenting here or making changes to the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No such underlying assumption intended. In the Senate race I simply thought you implied he was being drafted, so given your courteous offer I will respond by happily self-undoing those sources. In the minor races where draft-Paul status is unclear, I merely inserted a (cough) first draft, in accord with my former source review indicating some draft-Paul meme was a factor, because the existence and notability of "Draft Ron Paul movement" was clearly proven in the major races, as indicated below. JJB 02:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Any movement to draft Paul, and any call by an individual for a movement to draft Paul, are directly relevant; these have all been called "Draft Ron Paul movement"s. (The burden of proving otherwise is on the deleters.) The word "movement", as Snotty notes, generally includes some grassroots component, although the battle over the word "grassroots" was in mediation recently so we should not lean too hard on that word. What do we have that's direct? Ignoring the smaller campaigns, (1) Paul was drafted for president in 1987 ("drafted" includes at least the wooing to carry another party's banner for a year), though the applicability of "draft" is not sourced directly yet. (2) The 2001-4 draft movement sat in Paul's WP bio, unquestioned as such, for years. In an hour I showed this draft movement was noted by the DCCC, LRC, Murray Sabrin, and Chuck Baldwin, besides the supplemental WP:SPS; if one thinks more sources are needed to carry this subhead, please advise. (3) The 2006-7 (Republican) and 2007-8 (third-party) draft movement were noted by a few sources, but because there was a real run begun very early, there was not as much data this cycle; however, Paul's allusion to the grassroots encouragement in his Mar 2007 candidacy speech, not yet sourced but undeniable, certainly establishes the baseline here. (4) In this cycle, you have CFL working on grassroots efforts through two CPAC polls (the latter is scheduled next week and so this AFD is poorly timed, as it precludes the ability to gauge a knowably scheduled major grassroots effort to promote the candidacy, very certainly applicable); and you have 6 or 7 notable endorsements, which I have not yet reviewed to determine if they are calls for draft (directly applicable) or mere endorsements (indirectly).

In short, the sources already in the article, plus a couple noncontroversial unsourced data points, establish beyond doubt that there have been four or more notable "Draft Ron Paul movement"s. What more do you want? JJB 16:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't just "did a Draft Ron Paul movement exist" - it's, "is there anything worth saying beyond the article about his 2008 campaign and his bio"? For example, the 2012 content is all about speculation that he might run, not about a draft movement as far as I can see. --B (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, virtually everything listed that shows it exists has been cut from the bio and campaign and would unduly weight both. Spinout again. JJB 01:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Donatrip (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2011 (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.