Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ron Paul Revolution

799:--On one hand, the article does not seem to have enough standing or significance to stand on its own, and I would normally suggest it simply be merged and redirected. However, I do believe that the Ron Paul campaign in particular is the only presidential campaign at present for 2008 which has so extensively mobilized itself at the local, grassroots level. Since there are a significant number of grassroots efforts in the "Ron Paul Revolution," I do not feel this information will fit appropriately into the main Ron Paul article. Therefore, I recommend KEEPING this article for the moment, until it is no longer a current event (ie, Ron Paul does not become nominated/elected, the "Revolution" becomes history, etc), and there is no more significant grassroots activity for the Ron Paul campaign. Just a note, if there were any other candidate who was running such a large grassroots campaign, I would recommend he/she be entitled to a similar article as well. -- 1684:

one for official campaign appearances, polls, etc. Info will not be lost, this article will either remain as it is, be moved to another more descriptive name, or merged back into the original. I support keeping this article and moving things over from the official main campaign article that would better fit here. And if the consensus is that the name of this article does not properly reflect the contents, maybe rename the article (I don't have any better ideas...). I think the AfD tag should be removed, and ONLY possibly replaced with a suggested merge tag...but we should have another discussion on whether or not to do so. Seems to me that nearly everyone agrees not to simply delete this information in the article outright. So it boils down to keep as is, or merge into the main article. Time for a new discussion, let's start at page 1! :) --

292:"No doubt they mean well, but it will stay a proper summary page (once it achieves that) until about 5 minutes after this AfD completes." Wiki's not a crystal ball - and neither are you. :) The future of the article will be guided by consensus and constructive editing. Deleting an article just because you suspect it may become POV sometime in the future is not a sound basis. The article should be judged for what it is right now: a branch off of two other oversized articles that contains reliable sources and is notable. That it didn't start out that way is irrelevant, since articles can be improved. Also, this 3829:" This article does not contain tabloids, announcements, or gossip as its main sources - they consist primarily of substantial sources of competent journalism. The "Wiki is not a newspaper" is meant to prevent sensationalist news on celebrities or "flash in the pan" attention getters (like that duct tape bandit fellow). Paul's sustained widespread coverage, as well as his status as a Congressman and presidential candidate, mean that documenting his candidacy is neither sensationalist or temporary. I'd argue, in fact, that most candidates should receive as thorough a treatment as Ron Paul has had. 2420:- the definition of the term is different to different people, and every element of it can be more properly placed somewhere else (chiefly the campaign article - grassroots efforts on behalf of a candidate are part of political campaigns, not a separate phenomenon). If somewhere down the road the Ron Paul Revolution is recognized as a significant concept in political science, then it might deserve its own article, but for now it seems like a redirect to the campaign article and the incorporation therein of whatever useful content can be found in this one would suffice. 211:

activities of Paul's base independent of his campaign have received enough media attention to make it notable and warrant a separate article. Please re-read the article, which I've been working on improving. 3. The article documents a notable grass roots campaign independent of a politician's own official structure. Given the rarity with which this kind of phenomenon has occurred, I'd say this article has large potential to be useful in 2009 no mater the outcome because of the topic's importance in Presidential election history.

3847:. I think the day-to-day routine reporting of a campaign for nomination, in and of itself, does not meet notability under this policy. If the campaign is revolutionary for introducing something new to politics, or if the campaign is especially historic, then its notable. This is not even a presidential campaign; this is a campaign to get a nomination. The person is notable, but this article amounts to political advertising. Further, there is the issue of being in the news for a 998:

article is both high enough with sufficient content to merit its own separate article...there's too much to merge (instead of further lengthening the Ron Paul 08 Campaign article, this article can be used to take some of the load off from the aforementioned article...official campaign activity should be detailed in the aforementioned article, and this article should focus on the grassroots aspects). There's far too much sourced and fairly high quality information to simply delete. --

1354:

grassroots activity is an excellent way to fix both problems. AFD after one day seems uncharitable when a cursory review of the sources suggests much useful minable material awaits gleaning; and breaking out much of the campaign article's material on Internet, fundraising/moneybombs, straw polls, and supporter blitzes would be well-moved from campaign to Revolution. This is additional to the well-developed and unanswered points of smileyborg and Buspar.

2903:--- The r3VOLution is not about a man, the man Ron Paul is the first one to admit this. Rather, it is a continuation of the original American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the original Bill of Rights. It is deserving of its own page because it is much larger than the man Ron Paul. In fact, Ron Paul 2008 had nothing to do with the r3VOLution logo. This is a movement that needs to be documented. It is not a man says Ron Paul. 300:: "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus." Do you have evidence Duchamps disagreed with another editor and so started this one to avoid consensus? I saw none going through the edit histories. 3420:

shouldn't we salvage what's useful from the article? At any rate, people !vote for delete and merges (meaning "stick relevant info in appropriate article") all the time. This is the first I've ever heard that GFDL doesn't allow one to do so (though that doesn't mean you're not right, necessarily) and it seems a little unnecessarily lawyerly to insist that the whole AfD is "spoiled" because of that. --

828:

allow it to be developed more than one day. If the article turns out to contain information that is either a) solely biased, or b) not important enough to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s standards, then it should be removed. Essentially, this article was created "before its time," as we do not yet know the full significance of the phenomenon it describes. But I do see where you are coming from. --

3721:(2nd choice), but very strongly do not delete. There are plenty of reliable sources using this phrase to describe the grassroots campaign that it ought to be considered notable, but at the very least it is a valid phrase for a redirect. Note that nearly all of the arguments for "delete", including the nominator's, are actually arguments for a merge and redirect: "suggest merge", "the ( 916:

registering. Google “Ron paul cured my apathy” Even the Nov 5 moneybomb was created by one such supporter. –My point being that many thousands of people interested in politics will change the face of US politicks, energized to back the next big thing they are willing to put their time, money and vote into. Wit the origins being “the Ron Paul Revolution. I’d say that’s worthy.--

281:, right? This is a POV fork, which two editors are currently attempting to retroactively turn into a summary page. No doubt they mean well, but it will stay a proper summary page (once it achieves that) until about 5 minutes after this AfD completes. Perhaps someone less involved with the Paul campaign should divide it up. 3014:(which wouldn't retain value) and a good amount of hard facts (which do retain value). SO I don't see how either newspaper or crystal ball apply here. Redudancy is your strongest argument for deletion so far, but that can be resolved with some syncing up of the articles (which I've already done some). And there's still 625:

rationale follows my vote a bit farther down the page. Now, if the consensus IS indeed to merge and redirect this term to the main article, the redirect should link directly to the subsection where the information is moved to (as opposed to a redirect to the top of the Ron Paul campaign article). Agreed? --

2293:

discuss this on the talk page again so people can "revote" if they elected to simply delete the article at an earlier point in time, or if people wish to change their minds now that there is less risk of completely losing all information. By simplifying this debate and starting over, I'm acting in the

3450:

content, that still isn't a deletion. The content would remain accessible in the history. I understand that in usual terms you might see a pure redirect as equivalent to a deletion, since the content is not directly apparent in any article, but for WP purposes it's quite a different thing. Still, no,

2679:

I clicked on that link about "not a newspaper" and the word "newspaper" did not appear on that page once. I'd say an encyclopedia is a distillation of all newspapers past and present. Also, the article is good even if Paul drops out today. It doesn't depend on any prediction. Those of you who are

930:

And here we have the crux of the problem with these Paul neologism articles --- they assert that Paul's campaign is somehow "special", so much so that its slogans and slang take on encyclopedic value. In any other campaign, "revolution" is an empty peacock word. On the subject of Paul, it seems to be

624:

The idea of Knowledge (XXG) is NOT so that "keywords" will have linked advertising information, so I disagree that the info in this article should be kept only so that it appears when a user searches for "Ron Paul Revolution". I believe this article should be maintained independently of the original;

225:

An "improvement" to an inappropriate article made by shifting content out of another valuable article can hardly be considered an "improvement" to WP as a whole. Again: you are creating a second article for the same topic. Paul's entire campaign is a grassroots effort. This is no different than would

2986:

was put up for an AfD the second time, conditional keep votes (i.e. wait and see if Crocker gained popularity beyond Internet stardom) were considered equally valid as unconditional, resulting in a "no consensus" ruling. So the argument that a vote to wait is a vote to delete is incorrect given past

2437:

outright. In the nomination I suggested a merge, but most useful information in this article is duplicated elsewhere. It is unlikely that this poorly written ad about an campaign slogan for a minor candidate could ever achieve NPOV status. I hope the closing admin will take into consideration the

2326:

The argument is that (even though we aren't voting and shouldn't be) I count the tally to be 18 Delete OR Merge VS. 8 Keep at present. That is a majority, yet hardly a consensus as 30% argue to keep the article as is, while the remaining 60% are somewhat split between a pure delete and a merge. This

827:

Let me rephrase that. I believe this article should be kept due to its significance and one-of-a-kind following. And I argue to err on the side of caution when removing an article such as this one, which is what I was trying to get across. I believe the article should be kept for a period of time to

703:

It is appropriate to split things off an article when the content would cause that article to exceed size recommendations. Case in point, the List of Appearances. This article would document the grass roots efforts - which are well recorded - and keep them separate from the official campaign efforts

345:

fundraising and intrest is not small. It is in Mainstreem media TIME and theLos Angelas Times refering to “the Revolution” AKA the supporters. WP needs to define what this word as it is gaining in common parlance IE nightly news. It’s more of an ideology than a slogan which is why many will poo poo

2946:

Err, a quick glance at his contrib's shows he's been generally editing political candidates articles, not only Ron Paul ones. And that doesn't somehow affect his credibility to have an opinion on this AfD. I don't think you should be hunting for ways to discredit votes for "Keep" that disagree with

2635:

so main article isn't too large, as many others have said. Maybe revisit in 6 months, or if Ron Paul quits the race. If no one tells us editors that a vote is happening, most of us will never know, which is just plain stupid. A beloved article of mine was deleted before I ever heard of any vote.

1825:

So you're arguing that myself and others have not improved the quality of the discussion? You're both assuming bad faith and being uncivil. Your point might be valid if all I did was say "Keep per Duchamps," but since I've refuted several of your arguments and been generally constructive, you don't

1683:

All that I have done is source a few things, add a few things (NOT from other Knowledge (XXG) articles as you suggested), and change the See Also to a more descriptive one that explains this article is focusing on the grassroots efforts that are too large for the main article, and to go to the main

1134:

All right. However, isn't the point not what the article can be returned to but more what it can become? I've already improved the article by moving material that was cluttering other articles to this one. This article also allows for detailed info on the blimp and networking, material that doesn't

1107:

By your reasoning, a person who liked anime could never write an NPOV article on anime because they like it. That's bad logic. I, for one, have a history of cleaning up Ron Paul articles to keep the personal opinion out and only including opinions from secondary sources. If you see instances of POV

644:

The term "Ron Paul Revolution" has been used in multiple news reporters, such as Jack Cafferty. It is therefore worth having an article that details what it is precisely. I've seen news articles describing the "revolution" in papers like the Washington Post and other places, which means the article

210:

A reply per points: 1. That another article about Ron Paul became a center for OR and coatrack is irrelevant here. 2. The article is not solely about the slogan, but is about the term as it is used to describe Paul's grass roots support. Said usage is consistent with its use in the media, where the

3419:

I have always wanted this article deleted, what little useful info there is in it placed in the appropriate article(s) and possibly a redirect placed on the page. I changed this to a simple delete later on to be clearer about this. Perhaps I used the word "merge" carelessly (or maybe not)--but why

2859:

Let's not get stuck on the CONTENT of articles; when an article is deleted, it is because the article's name in and of itself is inappropriate, insignificant, etc. Content can always be changed to better fit WP's standards and the article's title. But the title itself determines whether an article

860:

That policy isn't relevant to this particular AfD, as the article in question does not contain speculation and is well sourced. Also, a vote to "keep until no longer newsworthy" is NOT a vote to delete, per past AfD precedent where allowing a current event to pass and then going back to reevaluate

246:

is 83 Kb and his campaign article is 119 Kb, so creating new articles to contain subsets of the info there is not only warranted but expected. This article is just one such subset. Given the continued length of the parent articles, more branches may be appropriate. After all, so long as an article

2826:

as possible. Remember that noteworthiness is determined by the media attention it receives. So your argument that it's not noteworthy is countered by the very presence of secondary sources. Remember, the perfect article "is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its

1478:

as clearly notable in its own right as a grassroots campaign. Any information here overlapping with the campaign article (e.g. details of moneybomb, Boston tea party, internet rankings, social networking) should be kept here and summarised in the campaign article, with See Also links to Ron Paul

915:

Regardless if Ron Paul does not become nominated/elected, the "Revolution" is still valid. Because this is the first time in recent/digital history that thousand of people have become interested in a canadite in a personal way via meetup.com as well thousands of first time would be voters are now

645:

passes the "perfect article test." I suggest having the article be about the people who support Ron Paul and their efforts that are independent of the official campaign, such as the money bombs, blimp, and fund raising. This would keep the article on the official campaign from becoming cluttered.

314:

This is a second article about the Paul campaign, ostensibly about the campaign slogan (a conceit not shared by any other '08 campaign), but really about how the Paul campaign is different/better/grassrootser-y than others. I'm going to opt to continue to call it a POV fork, but I understand your

3855:

not all) do not have historic importance beyond their relatively short era. I interpret that to mean "brief time". If, at some time later, this campaign ended up influencing the outcome of policy or further politics, then a seperate article may be warranted. I see nothing in this article that

3489:

Regardless --- yes, you're right, there's no merge-and-delete. In the interest of avoiding an unproductive DRV debate, I think it's safe to assume that the merge-and-delete crowd is fine with merge-and-redirect; I know other AfD's have "discounted" merge-and-delete, but, come on, don't you think

3013:

I, for one, can say it's going to remain valuable, as right now we have 1 article on the candidate, 1 on his official campaign (plus sub articles), and 1 on the independent grassroots effort. How would information on that not be valuable later on? There's little if any speculation in the article

2499:

Hmmm. Good idea. There ought to be a separate article about the Goldwater revolution too - even though it was much smaller, and has till now been put to bed by the neocons. The Ron Paul Revolution is resurrecting it and giving it a much more libertarian flavor. It could be incorporated into this

1353:

for a very simple reason (I may go into the other subreasons and rebuttals later). There is a consensus here for keeping the usable content (i.e., high number of "merge" comments), and the current campaign article is already overlong at 110K: so breaking it out in summary style into official and

3129:

Thanks Sharkface! Rather than try to analyze the above morass and reply point-by-point (as another editor seems keen on doing), I will merely append here to voice my confidence that a neutral admin will find a nonconsensus closure, and to re-emphasize a glaring problem with deletion (especially

2292:

But see, the problem is that an AfD that goes through as Delete risks losing info in the article if not properly merged. IF the consensus of "merge" is reached, then relevant info should be merged and this article turned into a redirect. The AfD should be suspended (or Keep), and we will simply

2266:

You're right, there is no "snowball keep." But if you read through the votes, nearly every person agrees (=consensus) to NOT delete the article without a merge first. So thus, the discussion becomes merge or keep. (Don't forget - a merge means this article essentially will be deleted, just the

1122:

I'm not saying what you can or can't write, and my reasons for deleting the article, spelled out at the top of this page, have nothing to do with your POV. I'm simply disputing the idea that there is some "NPOV status" for this article to "return" to; the article was created as a POV fork of an

1012:

This article references Myspace, Facebook, YouTube, press releases, The Ron Paul Blog (to "verify" that Paul has "surpassed" Obama), Meetup.com, a Ron Paul chat log, "Hotties 4 Ron Paul", and 3 different Ron Paul vanity domains. Much of the "high quality" sourcing simply repeats content already

2371:

One thing to remember: AfD's aren't decided by majority rule, but by the application of Wiki policy. Even if there are fewer keep votes than delete votes, if the keep votes make better arguments, the article will be kept (assuming the admin reads the discussion as they're supposed to). So, the

997:

Yes, BUT that's just how the article is written at present. With some editing it can be restored to a NPOV status. Most importantly, articles should not be deleted due the the content of the article, but ONLY for the content/significance of the article title itself. I think the quality of this

2356:

Yes, right, 19-8. But closing in on 3-1 against? No, it's much closer to 2-1 against (2.375-1 to be exact). And remember, that 2-1 is lumping pure deletes and votes to merge into one category. My only point was that there is not a consensus yet, however. But anyways, if you are so opposed to

1454:

If you've read the article recently, you'd see that I've moved material into this article that is not repeated in the other two, so your redundancy argument no longer applies since this article now contains more details, with the other two only have brief summaries and "See also" links.

3130:

one-day deletion of an article that is well-sourced and content-worthy even though it hasn't had time to be developed properly). Most of the delete comments have "merge" elements. So the problem is not content but placement. However, the deletion would ignore the standing consensus at

2003:), then the information can also be added to the 2008 presidential election article. But as it is, it's just a campaign tactic, one that, in the longer scheme of things, will end up being only a minor blip. This is a slogan - nothing more, and it deserves no special treatment. -- 718:

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. Without knowing that on "June 5, 2007 Paul was interviewed by Laura Knoy on New Hampshire Public Radio" or that on "September 14, 2007 Paul spoke at Seattle University in Seattle, Washington" we wouldn't have any idea what his campaign was about.

2045:

possibly delete in distance future, The Ron Paul Revolution has become a part of pop-culture and people at least for now and maybe in the distance future would want to know what Ron Paul Revolution meant when and if the concept is still active in political discourse just like

610:, and make more encyclopedic. I just want someone to be able to do a WP word search and find it. Without reading the "whole page". Would prefer It's own page but am not opposed to merge, and make more encyclopedic. Maybe some off you folks would lend a hand in edditing?-- 3506:. Only "delete" or "delete and redirect" !votes count towards deletion (that is, blanking the history) -- all other !votes are arguments for some version or another of "keep" (even a redirect without merge is a "keep" for AfD purposes, because the history remains). -- 1591:

I never said that the Boston Tea Party event should be removed from the Moneybomb article, it should be mentioned there as an example of a moneybomb, but described in detail here at Ron Paul Revolution. The rest of your points are irrelevant to this AfD discussion.

3729:

does not require deletion or AfD at all, and an administrative decision would not have been necessary if the proper process were followed, and merging an article's content to other articles without retaining the edit history of the original article would violate the

3170:

It's funny to watch the things people will say when they forget that everything on WP has an edit history. Next time, before you strike "~20k" worth of content from an article, you might wait to see how the AfD on the POV fork you've decided to merge to comes out.

3362:

I don't know which AfD you're commenting on now, but I think this is the Nth time I've pointed out that the nom wants a delete, and I want a delete. Just because I'm not going to be apoplectic if the article is merged, doesn't mean I commented in bad faith.

2521:- I'm officially changing my vote (Can I do that? I hope so...). The R.P.R. isn't yet notable especially since we don't know if he'll even make it out of the primary. Even if he does, this isn't notable enough as is to justify its own category in wiki. 193:

WP would not benefit from the (constantly changing) campaign slogans of every campaign getting articles; where do we draw the line? Presidents? Senators? State senators? There are already venues in WP for this content --- the articles on the campaigns

2267:

useful info will be "salvaged" first.) I simply suggest we start the discussion over because this one got a bit messy and now we can rule out a pure deletion as there is definitely a consensus not to lose some of the info in this article. Okay? --

3150:

the way to decide where content goes; the simultaneous delete period hampers ability to move content and in fact encourages the redundancy itself, because of fears of this, that, or t'other vanishing. A great chunk ~20K has been removed from

3347:

you want a merge, either do it yourself boldly, or use the "requested merge" methodology. And you stated from the start that you wanted a merge (even if you changed your mind later), which means this nomination was procedurally incorrect.

1042:

The article has 50 some references, including the Associated Press, CBS, Time, Situation Room, Boston Globe, and others. Please read the article before dismissing it so readily. It already includes numerous reliable secondary sources.

3001:

I don't mean to suggest that I determine what votes are and aren't valid, but for what it's worth, WP is not a newspaper or a crystal ball; if you can't say an article is going to remain valuable, that's a symptom of a bad article.

704:(which are also notable), which go in the main article. Keeping articles a certain length by branching off sub-sections is good Wiki practice and not redundant, as you seem to suggest. That's how I see this article being important. 399:

I think Monsieurdl and Verad would be surprised to know they'd written favorably about Paul (diffs please); I see no reason to question Duchamps comb's statement that only neutral canvassing of Paul-interested editors was intended.

861:

its contents was done (such as with Internet celebrities). To delete, you need to show the article isn't noteworthy in the way it lacks secondary sources. This article does not lack secondary sources, so its contents are notable.

1512:

The Moneybomb article is about the neologism used to describe a grassroots political fundraising event - it is not limited to Ron Paul events. The November 5th event and the BTP should be described at their most detailed here.

3501:

Personally, if I were closing this debate (note: I'm not an admin) I would have no problem counting "merge and delete" as "merge and redirect"; that's likely what they actually mean. Note however that those do not count towards

2961:

Check his contribs; he edits other GOP candidates to add negative information to them, and adds positive information to RP articles, and that seems to be the extent of it. Thanks for giving me the chance to straighten that out.

1717:'s page. I have no way of knowing if they are pro or con. Or as to their political views. --Maybe I'll go and send a "NPOV invitation" to many more. Maybe some new ideas and opinions could stop all this incessant filibuster.-- 1277:

with Ron Paul's presidential campaign page. The information is notable enough that it does deserve to be mentioned (with proper citations and NPOV of course), but I really don't forsee that it would ever need its own seperate

2793:

As I said above, "Those of you who are always trying to shorten WP in one way or another forget the READERS, who want more content, not less. Let them decide what they want to read or not. This is certainly encyclopedic."

3155:

on the presumption that this article will stand. I would appreciate the prior commenters questioning whether this simultaneous urge to merge is improving WP, or getting in the way of extant efforts to improve it. Thanks.

3039:

though I considered a merge. This is not unique to the 2008 election since I recall seeing this slogan used in the past, so it spans multiple elections. Probably the most ubiquitous campaign sign in Vegas this season!

2193:. If people want to roll back all the information into the campaign article, go ahead. But that article is huge. Just give this some time and let this article become stable, and then if it's unsatisfactory afd it again.-- 2821:

The Ron Paul campaign article may be long, but it is also generally well sourced. Where a reliable source exists that provides a comment on a factor relevant to the campaign, it should be included to make the article as

2579:). This article is ostensibly a dump for the latest Ron Paul grassroots activity that find there way into the papers. It's long-term notability is dubious, except perhaps as a few lines scattered throughout Paul's 2008 477:

Article has been changed a lot since I originally cast my position; I no longer have a good sense for what the best way to arrange all the RP material is. Nor do I envy the closing admin who has to sort this one out.

241:

and, therefore, Wiki policy says that branching it off is entirely appropriate! If the Kerry article was having the same length problem, your hypothetical new article would be entirely justified. The fact remains that

3248:

won't allow it. If you merge text into another article you have to have some way to determine the original authors, who retain copyright, and have licensed that copyright under a license that requires attribution.

1907:

To notify other editors with a neutral "friendly notices" of ongoing discussions, messages that are written NOT to influence the outcome but rather to improve the quality of a discussion should be looked at with

3744:") should have no bearing on the existence of this article. If other slogans are notable then they probably ought to have articles too. I'm surprised that there is no separate article for the extremely notable " 1995:, since when do we give presidential campaign slogans, tactics, and movements, their own articles, except when extremely successful and only after the fact? (such as the eminently, and permanently, notable 1813:

A neutral invitation is still canvassing when it is only sent to people you believe would agree with you. I think you're being disingenuous. You can take it to my talk page if you want to argue further.

3308:(and I know you have 5x my edits) --- merge is a common outcome of AfD. The nom wanted to delete. I want to delete. John wants to keep. The outcome might not be either. Obviously, any of us can go do a 2755:

of content apparently detail anything ever said about the candidate by anyone notable. Perhaps editing is a better cure for the ailments of this article, not wholesale metastasis across the rest of WP.

1363:

better than having a separate "Ron Paul Blimp" article. The blimp is borderline notable enough right now to merit mention in a more generic article like this, but would be harder to defend on its own.

436:--- I dispute that any mainstream media outlet refers to "the revolution". When TIME prints the words "Ron Paul Revolution", they are referring to the campaign slogan. They do the same thing with the 2185:. afd is premature. This article, IMO, ought to discuss the grassroots campaign for Ron Paul. The presidential campaign article is bloated enough. This should not be a pov fork, but rather a sort of 511:

very biased, can be contained in the presidential campaign article and I definitely feel that the "Ron Paul Revolution" is a neologism, or merely an off-hand comment that may/not have much currency.

2831:

related articles, or sister projects." I argue that the article is too long not because it does not contain noteworthy material, but because some of the material is better placed in sub-articles

1700:

I don't know what you're trying to say about what "it boils down to", but it's currently 14 v 5 in favor of "delete", 4 of the 5 "keeps" were canvassed, and one of them is the article creator.

341:-True “Ron Paul Revolution” it is a slogan but it also refers to the supporters. As the grass roots supporters (in their mind) joining the revolution, change in America, we can also see from 2140:

was solicited and as far as I can tell I've never show views sympathetic to that kind of promotional article or had contact with much anyone else around here, so I couldn't tell why me. —

1572:

event you referred to earlier is the most prominent example of the marginally notable phenomenon of "moneybombs". But, for the sake of further expanding Paulite content on WP, you advocate

662:--- it's hard to dispute that the term is newsworthy; we don't need to dredge up every reference to the term. But the topic already has an article: "Ron Paul Revolution" is the slogan for 2947:

yours. I'm sure some of the other votes for "Delete" have been made by editors with similar edit histories, but to me, that's really not important unless they are sock-puppet accounts. --

670:. If boosters for every candidate did that, WP would be littered with useless articles about defunct campaigns. Why carry two articles, when one article can be improved and taken to GA? 2680:

always trying to shorten WP in one way or another forget the READERS, who want more content, not less. Let them decide what they want to read or not. This is certainly encyclopedic.

2327:

ambiguity, in my opinion, requires a clean debate to clear up the mess. So while you wait for the AfD to close, you might as well head over and put your vote in to merge over on the

139: 85: 3856:

amounts to the campaign being revolutionary, causing major changes to politics/policy in America, etc. Thus, I think a merge into the article about Ron Paul is the best outcome.

2467:

movement, the RPR is very likely to outlast the 2008 election season. RPR is Goldwater Conservatism on steroids. It provides enough information for at least one separate article.

1629:

page. I don't mind making the other pages smaller, but if this page is deleted the info. will be lost. We need to figure out where to put all the grassroots fundraising info...--

2714:

I never said he wasn't. I said that I wasn't aware. I don't check every day every article I've ever edited, so I deserve to be notified when one of them is up for deletion.

3799:- per nom. Can someone explain why this candidate essentially has three articles about an open campaign? If he loses, then all of this will be yesterday's news. Merge per 1108:

in the current article, feel free to remove them. But deleting an article because you think the person who started it has a bias is neither logical nor assuming good faith.

875:

Where did you get the impression that the only reason an article could be deleted was lack of notability? This article should be deleted because it is a redundant POV fork.

544:

article, and doesn't deserve its own article as it can find its rightful place with its rightful candidate and supporters. Makes perfect sense to me, and it doesn't stop

3626: 2596: 2584: 2297:, not my personal desire to have this article remain as it is - honestly, I could care less if it gets merged or not (even though I do have an opinion on the matter). -- 2281:

Merge is one likely outcome of this debate. Keep is not. Either way: AfD's don't close on account of "messiness". Wouldn't have been "messy", had it not been canvassed.

3085:

Pro-Ron Paul article that would be better off as a paragraph in the Ron Paul Campaign article. Not neccessary, and in all probability will be forgotten in three years.

1553:

the only aspect of it that applies to non-Paul campaigns are its attempts to attribute every fundraising event in the 2008 primary season to attempts to copy Ron Paul,

1208:

If he wins or if maybe he had some impact on the 2008 election but other wise its just his internet buddies truing to get his name out there and wiki is not a soapbox

1374:(add: that would be an example of a neutral rename), including one section on origins of the term "Ron Paul Revolution". Pretending the debated article is about some 1222:

For what it is worth I am all in favor of giving this page "NPOV status" It has potential and to mark for Deletion after only one day seems like a bit of bad faith.--

1065:(or related), which is how they ended up on the nominated article creator's canvass list to comment here. There's no original good status to return this article to. 2103:

per Burz, tqbf. Please be wary of possible sockpuppetry and canvassing to keep articles like this alive. I assume good faith, but with RP supporters, good faith

1999:)) Put this into the campaign article, and if that gets too long, prune it. If Paul somehow miraculously gets the nomination (and I say this as someone who will 571:

People might wish to know what the "Ron Paul Revolution" is, and what exactly the phrase represents, but I think this should be presented in the main article. -

3851:. This is subjective as it is written, but I think this is relative. This campaign has a fixed length (irrelevant of the outcome). Most political campaigns ( 2743:

are, predictably, duplicated almost in their entirety. A large list of "notable campaign appearances" dominates the latter half of the article. The article has

1382:

question as I and others state it. As stated, the question yields a clear affirmative. Disclosure: I successfully predicted this article's eventual creation on

1135:

belong in either the moneybomb article or in the article on Paul's official campaign since neither the blimp or the networking belong to the official campaign.

3106:. However, the idea that such a well referenced and well written article be deleted.... I do not think this bodes well for the future of Knowledge (XXG). -- 3102:

As stated by several above users, this neologism has been used by multiple news sources. However, if the page cannot be saved, I suggest it be merged into

1741:, and you've contacted at least two or three other pro-Paul posters in an attempt to influence the outcome of this discussion since he raised the issue. -- 2696:

Duchamps, the author, is very fully aware that this article is up for deletion. He has been quite active here and on a few of the other Ron Paul pages. —

2255:

What does this comment even mean? The AfD will close in a few days. How do you figure this for a snowball keep? Even with canvassing, this article loses.

1298:

The mention of Paul's slogan makes me go into hot flashes! I can't control myself! Just kidding. I've seen more trivial matters on kept on wiki though.

1061:"NPOV status"; it was created by a Paul partisan, and every person advocating for the article in this AfD debate has also written favorably about Paul in 1889:. Your implication that Ron Paul supporters are somehow poor Wikipedians is not appropriate for this discussion. Do not use such language in the future. 414:

I don't. WP has edit histories on all articles. Note the editors Duchamps did not request comments from. I think you're wrong and will leave it at that.

3282:

Yes, people care. A merge is completely different from a deletion. In fact it was incorrect in the first place to bring a requested merge to AfD -- see

3825:

are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and

1799:

page. Did you even check to see how many people I invited that wanted to delete the page? Check your FACTS before you espouse your simple mindedness.--

3725:) content from this page could contribute to" the campaign article, "can be contained in the presidential campaign article", "Delete and merge", etc. 2345:

It's 19-8 (closing in on 3-1 against); you missed the nom. I'll stick with the AfD debate; let us know if you figure anything out on your talk page.

3756:

article. This article isn't just about a campaign slogan, it is about a grassroots campaign which has attracted notice from the mainstream media.

112: 107: 2927: 116: 3692:

The strongest argument to delete this article was that it was redundant. However, I think I've eliminated most of the redundancies with both

3217:, and not a simple grassroots effort about some social cause, it makes sense to incorporate it as a section of the article about Ron Paul's 197:

What is the likelihood that this article retains any value into 2009? Even the successful Bush campaigns don't leave this kind of detritus.

3622: 3469:

Okay, I just reread the original nom, and you're absolutely right; I should have been more careful and specific with my choice of words. --

3218: 3103: 2772: 2736: 2580: 2456: 2153: 2084: 2021: 1440: 1317: 1176: 1150: 1014: 899:

and merge any useful info. The term is not notable on its own and the content applies to his campaign, which already has its own article.--

779: 663: 541: 464: 172: 147: 99: 49: 3593: 2190: 1926: 1194: 783: 2931: 3118: 2983: 2982:

The argument that voting to wait and see on future notability is somehow a vote to delete is NOT in keeping with past precedent. When

2112: 3821:

I suggest re-reading the newspaper section, specifically: "Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as

3696:

and his presidential campaign article, making this a proper subarticle like several others that exist. This leaves some overlap with

17: 3134:

to split, which this article and others are attempting to carry out; the proper placement for grassroots campaigning for Paul is in

3055: 2311:

I think you already made this argument, but there it is again. I think we can wait for an admin to close the AfD, though. I'm still

3740:

is the appropriate place for a merge discussion. By the way, the lack of articles about other campaign slogans (though we do have "

946:

Yeah, it's like there's never been an American grassroots candidacy that caught on and brought in uninvolved voters before ... no

3634: 1386:, but have not been minded to contribute to it. (I also believe personally that, if deleted, it will be recreated sustainably.) 686: 3474: 3425: 2443: 1746: 1501:) already have articles? Your argument is therefore that "internet rankings" and "social networking" need their own article. 1241: 851: 733:

I think you missed my point. The point of the branch off is to retain information without causing an article to be too long.

154: 3774:

Good point! Arguing that since other campaign slogans don't have articles this one shouldn't exist is a logical fallacy per

3146:

other articles, two of which are up on AFD; the helpful template for navigating them is also up for TFD. Deletion is simply

167:--- this is an article about the slogan of a campaign that already has a strong WP article. It is far more likely that the ( 3312:

merge right now, but given the debate here, the prudent thing to do is to wait for the discussion to close; it would be a

2294: 363:

Duchamps comb should have mentioned that he is the creator of the nominated article; he also specifically requested that

3637:. This level of detail is unencyclopedic, I don't see the value to anyone fifty years from now. WP is not a newspaper. 2536: 1236:

So are you saying that the vast majority of editors here who support deleting this page are also acting in bad faith? --

3887: 2808:

All of us, on both sides, are substituting our own judgement for that of the anonymous reader. That's what editing is.

36: 3195: 3161: 2425: 1422: 1391: 1081: 405: 1969:--- I thought of SPA-tagging too; he's worked on several articles, but virtually all are all Paul campaign articles. 1378:

topic (such as about a term or slogan only, or about pro-Paul POV) would not be helpful for finding the consensus on

1413:

I did not say potential recreation was a deletion argument, but a personal belief. And protection is not proper for

1400:

You think we shouldn't delete the article because if we do, people will recreate it? That's what protection is for.

3656: 2923: 2908: 1336:, Yet another Ron Paul is wonderful article. The swarm of other articles about Ron Paul cover this sufficiently. 3865: 3838: 3812: 3787: 3765: 3709: 3680: 3646: 3611: 3596: 3530: 3515: 3496: 3478: 3460: 3429: 3402: 3369: 3357: 3322: 3299: 3269: 3258: 3230: 3199: 3177: 3165: 3124: 3094: 3077: 3059: 3027: 3008: 2996: 2968: 2956: 2941: 2912: 2887: 2869: 2854: 2843: 2814: 2803: 2788: 2779:. Permitting this fork to exist merely allows the items contributing to the excess size to persist unaddressed. - 2762: 2723: 2707: 2689: 2668: 2645: 2623: 2608: 2561: 2540: 2509: 2494: 2476: 2447: 2429: 2392: 2381: 2366: 2351: 2340: 2321: 2306: 2287: 2276: 2261: 2248: 2227: 2202: 2175: 2144: 2120: 2095: 2073: 2059: 2037: 2012: 1975: 1961: 1940: 1917: 1898: 1876: 1862: 1846: 1835: 1820: 1808: 1773: 1750: 1726: 1706: 1693: 1674: 1652: 1638: 1601: 1586: 1576:

and adding it to this article? One wonders if you'll be up in arms a week from now, when it's been copied back to

1522: 1507: 1488: 1464: 1449: 1426: 1406: 1395: 1345: 1326: 1307: 1287: 1265: 1245: 1231: 1217: 1159: 1144: 1129: 1117: 1096: 1085: 1071: 1052: 1027: 1007: 992: 967: 941: 925: 908: 881: 870: 855: 837: 822: 808: 791: 756: 742: 728: 713: 698: 676: 654: 634: 619: 599: 580: 561: 530: 501: 487: 446: 420: 409: 394: 355: 321: 309: 287: 268: 232: 220: 203: 158: 69: 3470: 3421: 3386: 2439: 2357:

contributing to the article's own talk page, so be it. I have no interest in persuading anyone to do anything. --

1742: 1597: 1518: 1484: 1237: 847: 150: 3886:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

3741: 2459:

is unnecessary, would make said article too long, and would be unwise, because it covers a separate topic. The

2166: 1256:

NO. I'm not saying that at all (don't be a troll). Only a select few (you) seem to have a personal vindetta. --

179:

achieving FA) than it is that this article about a neologism could ever become an FA. Three additional points:

35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

3736: 3186:, who also opted for deletion of the Revolution article above. What were you referring to ("next time, before 3073: 2599:

page, leaving only the Moneybombs & various minor events (the details of which are largely duplicated). -

2328: 2234: 103: 1543:

it's since become such a cesspool of OR and coatrack boosterism that the most prominent thing on the page is

3590: 2490: 2482: 2108: 1957: 1913: 1804: 1722: 1648: 1634: 1383: 1261: 1227: 1190: 963: 921: 787: 724: 694: 615: 521: 483: 472: 351: 3775: 3043: 2848:

I didn't criticize the article for being unsourced; I criticized it for being poorly-edited and redundant.

2572: 2524: 1182: 843: 3861: 3808: 3113: 2784: 2604: 2421: 2116: 255:, it should be kept. And you've already conceded both of them and seem to have no suitable response to my 2874:

Being poorly edited isn't something that qualifies an article for deletion, however, so long as it meets

384: 3213:- I'm pretty much on the fence here but overall I think that since this is a movement as part of Paul's 3051: 2919: 2904: 2055: 1283: 437: 187: 3138:

article, with most of the campaign article more appropriately needing to merge to this one. Right now

3676: 3659:

given proper respect by the newspaper editors, &c., and were the public adequately informed, the

2952: 2865: 2505: 2472: 2362: 2336: 2302: 2272: 2244: 2223: 1854:

Gotta love how your response to being told you're canvassing is to go and canvass nineteen more users

1689: 1593: 1537:

made "no consensus" on an AfD by arguing that it was a neutral term that applied to all candidacies,

1514: 1480: 1003: 833: 804: 752: 630: 497: 2659: 1738: 274: 3753: 3664: 3642: 3511: 3456: 3398: 3353: 3295: 3254: 3226: 3191: 3157: 3069: 2799: 2719: 2685: 2641: 2460: 2198: 2157: 2033: 1770: 1626: 1435:

This article "contains usable content" because it "repeats the content of other articles", such as

1418: 1387: 1077: 401: 95: 75: 61: 52:; it was content that was already in that article, therefore the GFDL requirements are satisfied. 3587: 3520:

I'd just be happy to see what the consensus is here. I'd be fine with a merge+redirect (again: I

2528: 2486: 1953: 1909: 1872: 1800: 1718: 1644: 1630: 1341: 1299: 1257: 1223: 1186: 959: 917: 904: 720: 690: 611: 576: 545: 514: 479: 468: 347: 3726: 3571: 3563: 3283: 2651: 2064: 1882: 297: 3068:- Nothing but spam by another Ron Paul supporter. Haven't they vandalized the Internet enough? 1774:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution

3857: 3804: 3761: 3108: 3090: 2780: 2697: 2600: 1930: 1664: 1370:

to remember that the question must be stated as being about the existence of an article about

589: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3575: 3313: 3309: 3015: 2768: 1945: 256: 238: 3834: 3783: 3749: 3705: 3047: 3023: 2992: 2883: 2839: 2532: 2377: 2051: 2008: 1996: 1894: 1831: 1460: 1303: 1279: 1213: 1140: 1113: 1048: 988: 866: 738: 709: 650: 305: 264: 216: 3800: 3663:

would be pressured to comply, the Law of the Land would prevail, and there wouldn't be any

3602: 3305: 2823: 1886: 813: 3672: 2948: 2861: 2501: 2468: 2358: 2332: 2298: 2268: 2240: 2219: 2047: 1685: 999: 951: 947: 932: 829: 800: 748: 626: 549: 493: 376: 368: 3551: 3446:, depending on the degree of the merge, but even if you just redirect it without merging 2875: 2186: 248: 3638: 3507: 3452: 3394: 3349: 3291: 3250: 3222: 2795: 2715: 2681: 2637: 2551: 2194: 2029: 372: 3827:

topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial.

2776: 2576: 2455:- This new article covers an important and unique topic. Merging the article into the 252: 2000: 1868: 1622: 1337: 1076:

Thomas, since you repeat this charge, please see my and Monsieurdl's comments above.

955: 900: 572: 467:. Article is awfully written to boot, usually Paulites are a little more skillful. 3263:

Merge is merge. If the outcome is merge, leave a redirect. Does anyone really care?

3757: 3086: 2088: 387:

comment on this discussion; all of these editors have written favorably about Paul.

237:

You still haven't answered my point that the article I'm removing material from is

53: 3524:

a delete) --- that's still one less page that needs to be policed for boosterism.

1840:

Sorry you feel that way. But yes, I think you're here because you were canvassed.

133: 3830: 3779: 3701: 3019: 2988: 2879: 2835: 2373: 2025: 2004: 1890: 1827: 1456: 1209: 1136: 1109: 1044: 984: 862: 734: 705: 646: 364: 301: 260: 212: 3843:

My interpretation, and hence the reason I made the statement I did regards the

492:

Hahah, you are so right. Poor admin, what a mess we editors make. Ah well... --

3745: 3660: 3567: 2141: 380: 226:

have been an '04 attempt to create a "People vs. The Powerful" Kerry article.

3451:

I don't think the AfD is "spoiled". My comments were for future reference. --

2549:

article does not stand on its own. Topic is covered in the campaign article.

2218:

This discussion is getting too long and personal anyways. Don't you agree? --

277:

page; if it was, it wouldn't be called "Ron Paul Revolution". You do realize

3697: 3668: 3630: 3606: 3555: 3545: 3525: 3491: 3364: 3317: 3264: 3182:

I agree with your first sentence! I was referring to the striking of 19K by

3172: 3003: 2963: 2936: 2849: 2809: 2757: 2740: 2663: 2618: 2614: 2464: 2387: 2346: 2316: 2282: 2256: 2068: 1970: 1857: 1841: 1815: 1734: 1701: 1581: 1577: 1569: 1534: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1479:

Revolution under the Internet Popularity and Fundraising section headings.

1444: 1436: 1401: 1321: 1154: 1124: 1091: 1066: 1022: 1018: 936: 876: 817: 671: 441: 415: 389: 342: 316: 282: 227: 198: 183: 2662:--- if we have to predict that it merits an article, it probably doesn't. 1179:, as it already explains the grassroots effect of the campaign thoroughly. 3693: 3583: 3559: 3152: 3139: 3131: 1796: 1776:

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thanks.

1714: 1618: 1062: 243: 176: 1149:

I'm sure you're doing great work, which will eventually be a service to

935:--- an actual revolt, which now has fewer words than this Paul article. 2739:

is "too big" is that it's poorly edited. For instance, the contents of

2463:

is unique in that it is independent of the official campaign. Like the

440:, which (properly) does not have an article separate from John McCain. 2210:

with above. As I mentioned before, close this AfD as this article is

3579: 3316:

for me to pretend like John and "Duchamps Comb" are OK with a merge.

983:; this appears more to be cheerleading for Paul than anything else -- 666:. In effect, you aren't asking for an article about a notable topic: 3442:

was that you wanted it merged. That might mean deleting most of the

3286:

for the proper procedure. AfD is only for when you want the article

2028:) that much of it is a slogan and does not deserve its own article. 1713:

I did not canvass! Thank you. I only contacted people who edited on

3544:--- I believe it is quite easy to establish from past history that 2067:. A vote to "keep until no longer newsworthy" is a vote to delete. 816:. A vote to "keep until no longer newsworthy" is a vote to delete. 3880:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3731: 3245: 3582:

members on their talk pages. With regard to this AfD and other

3018:

that says subarticles related to Paul's campaign should exist.

1663:

It's just you, Smileyborg, and Buspar that are doing that... —

1417:

recreation. I note you did not respond to my actual arguments.

2050:

has become a part of pop-culture and the political discourse.

1559:

it's now being cited as a non-Paul article to justify fitting

3778:. So that's another argument for deletion that doesn't work. 2132:

for crying out loud. As for the canvassing... well it seems

3752:

article to which it redirects is very much analagous to the

2214:

Then let's all move to the talk page and discuss whether to

1925:: I would remind all that Duchamps is basically an SPA (see 2771:

arguments for preservation are undermined by the fact that

2152:, Some information in this article is already found in the 1795:

This is the invitation I sent out to ALL who edited on the

3290:, which means its history will no longer be accessible. -- 2650:

This is another "keep until no longer newsworthy" vote.

2481:

Your example disproves your point — there's no separate

2128:; this is a thinly veiled attempt to give exposure to a 3183: 278: 146:

Subject not notable in its own right; suggest merge to

129: 125: 121: 3823:

announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism,

2827:

subject, without including information that would be

2655: 2109:

Duchamps comb has already got the ball rolling there

1090:

Your comment refutes my assertion without evidence.

2233:I have started a new discussion on the matter over 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3578:. It is obvous in his bias, Anti-Paul status, and 2747:of information about the fundraising results of a 3627:Ron Paul presidential campaign developments, 2008 2597:Ron Paul presidential campaign developments, 2008 2372:outcome of this AfD can't be predicted just yet. 747:I strongly agree with Buspar's comments above. -- 3890:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2617:and Tea Party stuff have their own article too. 3655:Funny you should mention "newspaper". Were the 3586:pages. (Admins I request you look into this).-- 3142:is laid out in summary style with reference to 668:you're demanding that the WP carry two of them 1867:That's how you know he is a RP supporter =P 171:) content from this page could contribute to 48:. Any useful content from this article is in 8: 2438:pro-Paul canvassing surrounding this AfD. -- 3700:, which can be cleaned up through editing. 2595:have already been transitioned over to the 1316:It's not that's it's trivial, it's that it 1021:. I think we'll live without this article. 548:from adding material relevant to Ron Paul. 3635:List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances 2775:is flooded with items that are simply not 2660:Knowledge (XXG) is also not a crystal ball 2020:all the cited facts and NPOV content with 1617:some folks are deleting sections from the 1359:One other fine point of Buspar's: this is 687:List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances 569:Delete, merge, and make more encyclopedic. 86:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul Revolution 1531:problem with these neologism articles: 685:of them, actually ... there is already 83: 3667:. Good thing Knowledge (XXG) is not a 1057:Also, please note: this article never 463:Topic can be easily dealt with within 2833:such as the one being discussed here. 1580:so that it resides in both articles. 1443:. This article is a simple POV fork. 540:. This most certainly belongs in the 186:, quickly became a magnet for OR and 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 3623:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 3104:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 2773:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 2737:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 2457:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 2085:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 2022:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 1441:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 1151:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 1015:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 780:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 542:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 465:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 173:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 148:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 50:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 2191:Ron Paul Presidential campaign 2008 1574:removing it from the moneybomb page 1372:grassroots campaigning for Ron Paul 82: 2652:Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper 2156:, everything else can be merged.-- 2065:Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper 814:Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper 279:these articles have edit histories 24: 3601:I think you want to take that to 3339:. But it shouldn't be the intent 2878:. And redundancy is easy to fix. 2295:best interests of Knowledge (XXG) 2212:NOT going to be deleted outright. 182:Another Paul campaign neologism, 2829:more suitable in "sub-articles", 3385:sorry, that wasn't you, it was 2024:. I agree with the user above ( 475:) 19:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 3621:subject adequately covered in 3490:that's just process run amok? 1: 3866:01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 3839:23:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3813:16:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3788:06:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3766:06:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3710:06:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3681:13:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3647:06:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3612:04:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3597:04:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3531:04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3516:04:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3497:04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3479:03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3461:03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3430:02:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3403:02:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3393:bad, but the point stands. -- 3370:02:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3358:02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3323:02:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3300:02:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3270:02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3259:02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3231:01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3200:01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3178:01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3166:00:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3125:23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 3095:09:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 3078:07:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 3066:Delete with extreme prejudice 3060:04:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 3028:03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 3009:03:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 2997:02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 2969:05:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 2957:05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 2942:21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2913:21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2888:03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 2870:05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 2855:03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 2844:03:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 2815:21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2804:21:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2789:20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2763:20:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2724:21:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2708:20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2690:21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2669:20:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2646:20:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2624:17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2609:16:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2562:16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2541:15:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2510:04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 2495:15:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2477:15:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2448:15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2430:08:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2393:20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2382:12:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2367:08:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2352:08:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2341:08:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2322:08:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2307:07:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2288:07:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2277:07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2262:07:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2249:07:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2228:06:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2203:05:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2176:04:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2145:03:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2121:02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2096:01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2074:01:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2060:01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2038:01:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2013:01:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1976:05:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1962:04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1941:03:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1918:03:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1899:05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1877:03:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1863:01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1847:05:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1836:05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1826:have a leg to stand on here. 1821:01:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1809:01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1751:00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1727:00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1707:23:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1694:23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1675:22:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1653:21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1639:21:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1602:22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1587:23:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1523:22:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1508:21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1489:21:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1465:04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1450:20:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1427:17:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 1407:19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1396:19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1346:18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1327:19:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1308:18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1288:16:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1266:18:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1246:16:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1232:15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1218:07:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1160:06:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1145:06:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1130:06:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1118:05:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1097:20:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1086:19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1072:05:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1053:05:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1028:05:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1008:05:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 993:00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 968:04:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 942:00:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 926:23:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 909:18:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 882:03:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 871:03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 856:17:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 838:16:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 823:14:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 809:10:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 792:03:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 757:10:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 743:08:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 729:01:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 714:01:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 699:01:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 677:01:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 655:00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 635:10:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 620:21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 600:20:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 581:20:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 562:20:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 531:19:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 502:07:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 488:04:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 447:01:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 421:20:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 410:19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 395:03:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 356:19:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 322:05:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 310:05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 288:05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 269:05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 233:19:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 221:08:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 204:19:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 159:18:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 70:01:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 2735:--- One of the reasons that 2593:Boston Tea Party Reenactment 1952:) Thanks "HelloAnnyong"...-- 958:in 1984 and 1988 ... sigh. 3304:I think you need to reread 3244:as "delete and merge"! The 2577:Notability is not temporary 2001:caucus for him on January 3 239:too large by Wiki standards 3907: 3657:United States Constitution 1625:page and puting it in the 1561:yet another Paul neologism 1197:) 07:13, December 26, 2007 3387:User:Newsroom hierarchies 273:It's transparently not a 3883:Please do not modify it. 3742:Tippecanoe and Tyler too 842:Knowledge (XXG) is also 689:, believe it or not ... 32:Please do not modify it. 2613:Believe it or not, the 2386:Agreed wholeheartedly. 2107:is advised. I see that 1643:Welcome to Wikichaos! 931:more valuable than the 3723:appropriately verified 3241:there is no such thing 2483:Goldwater Conservative 2465:Goldwater Conservative 1563:into the encyclopedia. 1318:already has an article 169:appropriately verified 81:AfDs for this article: 3845:routine news coverage 3215:presidential campaign 2932:few or no other edits 2749:single fiscal quarter 438:Straight Talk Express 3849:brief period of time 3562:other users causing 3471:Newsroom hierarchies 3422:Newsroom hierarchies 3100:Strong Keep or Merge 2934:outside this topic. 2440:Newsroom hierarchies 1743:Newsroom hierarchies 1568:Let's be clear: the 1238:Newsroom hierarchies 1153:, where it belongs. 848:Newsroom hierarchies 151:Newsroom hierarchies 3754:Ron Paul Revolution 3665:Ron Paul Revolution 2461:Ron Paul Revolution 1771:Ron Paul Revolution 1627:Ron Paul Revolution 1545:picture of Ron Paul 1527:And now we see the 1493:Are you aware that 385:User:John J. Bulton 96:Ron Paul Revolution 76:Ron Paul Revolution 3719:merge and redirect 3335:Merge is a common 2753:fifteen paragraphs 1366:I would encourage 1123:existing article. 844:not a crystal ball 3629:, not to mention 3062: 3046:comment added by 2935: 2860:lives or dies. -- 2543: 2527:comment added by 2519:Merge Then Delete 2422:Sarcasticidealist 2136:is going on, but 1198: 1185:comment added by 526: 175:attaining GA (or 3898: 3885: 3750:Draft Eisenhower 3727:Merging articles 3717:(1st choice) or 3609: 3548: 3528: 3494: 3367: 3320: 3267: 3211:Delete and merge 3175: 3121: 3116: 3111: 3041: 3006: 2966: 2939: 2920:Anappealtoheaven 2917: 2905:Anappealtoheaven 2852: 2812: 2760: 2704: 2701: 2666: 2621: 2558: 2522: 2390: 2349: 2319: 2285: 2259: 2172: 2171: 2163: 2162: 2093: 2071: 1997:Daisy commercial 1973: 1937: 1934: 1860: 1844: 1818: 1704: 1671: 1668: 1584: 1570:Boston Tea Party 1505: 1499:Boston Tea Party 1447: 1404: 1324: 1180: 1177:campaign article 1157: 1127: 1094: 1069: 1025: 939: 879: 820: 674: 596: 593: 559: 558: 556: 538:Delete and merge 528: 524: 520: 517: 444: 418: 392: 319: 285: 230: 201: 137: 119: 66: 58: 34: 3906: 3905: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3888:deletion review 3881: 3607: 3546: 3526: 3492: 3438:Well, what you 3383:self-correction 3365: 3318: 3265: 3173: 3119: 3114: 3109: 3004: 2964: 2937: 2850: 2810: 2758: 2745:five paragraphs 2702: 2699: 2664: 2619: 2552: 2388: 2347: 2317: 2283: 2257: 2169: 2168: 2160: 2159: 2130:campaign slogan 2089: 2069: 2048:Reagan Democrat 1971: 1935: 1932: 1858: 1842: 1816: 1702: 1669: 1666: 1594:Corleonebrother 1582: 1515:Corleonebrother 1503: 1481:Corleonebrother 1445: 1402: 1351:Keep and rename 1322: 1155: 1125: 1092: 1067: 1023: 952:George McGovern 948:Eugene McCarthy 937: 933:Rose Revolution 877: 818: 672: 664:Paul's campaign 594: 591: 588:as per tqbf. — 554: 551: 550: 527: 522: 515: 513: 442: 416: 390: 377:User:Monsieurdl 369:User:Smileyborg 317: 283: 228: 199: 190:Paul boosterism 110: 94: 91: 79: 68: 62: 54: 44:The result was 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3904: 3902: 3893: 3892: 3875: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3816: 3815: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3769: 3768: 3748:", though the 3712: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3650: 3649: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3464: 3463: 3433: 3432: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3233: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3192:John J. Bulten 3158:John J. Bulten 3097: 3080: 3070:Arbiteroftruth 3063: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2872: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2767:I concur, the 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2711: 2710: 2693: 2692: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2654:--- there's a 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2589:Ron Paul Blimp 2565: 2564: 2544: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2450: 2432: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2369: 2252: 2251: 2216:MERGE or KEEP. 2179: 2178: 2147: 2123: 2098: 2087:per WastedTime 2078: 2077: 2076: 2040: 2015: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1964: 1920: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1823: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1730: 1729: 1710: 1709: 1697: 1696: 1678: 1677: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1557: 1551: 1541: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1419:John J. Bulten 1388:John J. Bulten 1364: 1356: 1355: 1348: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1291: 1290: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1220: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1078:John J. Bulten 1055: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 912: 911: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 794: 774:per tqbf, and 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 701: 639: 638: 637: 603: 602: 583: 565: 564: 534: 533: 519: 506: 505: 504: 451: 450: 449: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 402:John J. Bulten 373:User:Katydidit 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 207: 206: 195: 191: 144: 143: 90: 89: 88: 80: 78: 73: 60: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3903: 3891: 3889: 3884: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3795: 3794: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3776:WP:OTHERSTUFF 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3738: 3733: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3713: 3711: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3688: 3687: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3617: 3613: 3610: 3604: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3595: 3592: 3589: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3550:is guilty of 3549: 3543: 3540: 3539: 3532: 3529: 3523: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3495: 3488: 3480: 3476: 3472: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3418: 3417: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3371: 3368: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3324: 3321: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3271: 3268: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3247: 3243: 3242: 3238:Hey, people, 3237: 3234: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3209: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3176: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3163: 3159: 3154: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3123: 3122: 3117: 3112: 3105: 3101: 3098: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3081: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3064: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3038: 3035: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3007: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2987:AfD rulings. 2985: 2984:Chris Crocker 2981: 2978: 2970: 2967: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2940: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2899: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2853: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2834: 2830: 2825: 2820: 2816: 2813: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2761: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2731: 2730: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2712: 2709: 2706: 2705: 2695: 2694: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2670: 2667: 2661: 2657: 2656:seperate wiki 2653: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2634: 2631: 2630: 2625: 2622: 2616: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2575:(see section 2574: 2573:WP:Notability 2570: 2567: 2566: 2563: 2560: 2559: 2557: 2556: 2548: 2545: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2520: 2517: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2487:Wasted Time R 2484: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2451: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2436: 2433: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2416: 2394: 2391: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2370: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2350: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2320: 2314: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2286: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2260: 2254: 2253: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2236: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2181: 2180: 2177: 2174: 2173: 2165: 2164: 2155: 2151: 2148: 2146: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2124: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2099: 2097: 2094: 2092: 2086: 2082: 2079: 2075: 2072: 2066: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2044: 2041: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2016: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1991: 1990: 1977: 1974: 1968: 1965: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1954:Duchamps comb 1951: 1950:image removed 1947: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1939: 1938: 1928: 1924: 1921: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1910:Duchamps comb 1908:negativity.-- 1906: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1861: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1845: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1824: 1822: 1819: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1801:Duchamps comb 1798: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1775: 1772: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1737:that you are 1736: 1733:I agree with 1732: 1731: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1719:Duchamps comb 1716: 1712: 1711: 1708: 1705: 1699: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1676: 1673: 1672: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1645:Wasted Time R 1642: 1641: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1631:Duchamps comb 1628: 1624: 1623:Ron Paul 2008 1621:page and the 1620: 1616: 1613: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1585: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1562: 1558: 1556: 1552: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1540: 1536: 1533: 1532: 1530: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1506: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1477: 1474: 1473: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1448: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1405: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1352: 1349: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1332: 1328: 1325: 1319: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1276: 1273: 1272: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1258:Duchamps comb 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1224:Duchamps comb 1221: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1204: 1203: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1187:Milk the cows 1184: 1178: 1174: 1171: 1170: 1161: 1158: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1128: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1106: 1098: 1095: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1070: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1029: 1026: 1020: 1016: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1005: 1001: 996: 995: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 975: 969: 965: 961: 960:Wasted Time R 957: 956:Jesse Jackson 953: 949: 945: 944: 943: 940: 934: 929: 928: 927: 923: 919: 918:Duchamps comb 914: 913: 910: 906: 902: 898: 895: 883: 880: 874: 873: 872: 868: 864: 859: 858: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 840: 839: 835: 831: 826: 825: 824: 821: 815: 812: 811: 810: 806: 802: 798: 795: 793: 789: 785: 784:71.166.36.102 781: 777: 773: 770: 758: 754: 750: 746: 745: 744: 740: 736: 732: 731: 730: 726: 722: 721:Wasted Time R 717: 716: 715: 711: 707: 702: 700: 696: 692: 691:Wasted Time R 688: 684: 680: 679: 678: 675: 669: 665: 661: 658: 657: 656: 652: 648: 643: 640: 636: 632: 628: 623: 622: 621: 617: 613: 612:Duchamps comb 609: 605: 604: 601: 598: 597: 587: 584: 582: 578: 574: 570: 567: 566: 563: 560: 557: 547: 546:Duchamps comb 543: 539: 536: 535: 532: 529: 525: 518: 510: 507: 503: 499: 495: 491: 490: 489: 485: 481: 480:Wasted Time R 476: 474: 470: 469:Wasted Time R 466: 460: 457: 456: 452: 448: 445: 439: 435: 432: 431: 422: 419: 413: 412: 411: 407: 403: 398: 397: 396: 393: 388: 386: 382: 378: 374: 370: 366: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 353: 349: 348:Duchamps comb 344: 340: 337: 323: 320: 313: 312: 311: 307: 303: 299: 295: 291: 290: 289: 286: 280: 276: 272: 271: 270: 266: 262: 258: 254: 250: 245: 240: 236: 235: 234: 231: 224: 223: 222: 218: 214: 209: 208: 205: 202: 196: 192: 189: 185: 181: 180: 178: 174: 170: 166: 163: 162: 161: 160: 156: 152: 149: 141: 135: 131: 127: 123: 118: 114: 109: 105: 101: 97: 93: 92: 87: 84: 77: 74: 72: 71: 67: 65: 59: 57: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3882: 3879: 3874: 3858:LonelyBeacon 3852: 3848: 3844: 3826: 3822: 3805:LonelyBeacon 3796: 3735: 3722: 3718: 3714: 3689: 3618: 3541: 3521: 3503: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3390: 3382: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3287: 3240: 3239: 3235: 3214: 3210: 3187: 3184:CheshireKatz 3147: 3143: 3135: 3107: 3099: 3082: 3065: 3036: 2979: 2900: 2832: 2828: 2781:CheshireKatz 2752: 2748: 2744: 2732: 2698: 2632: 2601:CheshireKatz 2592: 2588: 2585:developments 2568: 2554: 2553: 2550: 2546: 2518: 2452: 2434: 2417: 2312: 2232: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2182: 2167: 2158: 2154:main article 2149: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2113:75.65.91.142 2105:with caution 2104: 2100: 2090: 2080: 2052:Lord Metroid 2042: 2017: 1992: 1966: 1949: 1931: 1922: 1881:Please obey 1853: 1665: 1614: 1573: 1560: 1554: 1548: 1544: 1538: 1535:That article 1528: 1497:(and, thus, 1475: 1414: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1360: 1350: 1333: 1295: 1293: 1292: 1274: 1205: 1172: 1058: 980: 976: 896: 796: 775: 771: 682: 667: 659: 641: 607: 590: 585: 568: 552: 537: 512: 508: 462: 458: 454: 453: 433: 362: 338: 296:a case of a 293: 168: 164: 145: 63: 55: 45: 43: 31: 28: 3801:WP:NOT#NEWS 3661:politicians 3048:Vegaswikian 3042:—Preceding 2930:) has made 2523:—Preceding 2026:User:Golbez 1415:sustainable 1384:11/30 12:23 1280:Umbralcorax 1181:—Preceding 1013:present on 954:in 1972 or 950:in 1968 or 365:User:Buspar 315:objection. 259:citations. 194:themselves. 3746:I Like Ike 3673:JLMadrigal 3568:incivility 3564:wikistress 3190:strike")? 2949:smileyborg 2862:smileyborg 2777:noteworthy 2751:. Another 2658:for that. 2502:JLMadrigal 2485:article. 2469:JLMadrigal 2359:smileyborg 2333:smileyborg 2299:smileyborg 2269:smileyborg 2241:smileyborg 2220:smileyborg 2187:subarticle 1739:canvassing 1686:smileyborg 1000:smileyborg 830:smileyborg 801:smileyborg 749:smileyborg 627:smileyborg 494:smileyborg 381:User:Verad 275:WP:SUMMARY 3853:certainly 3698:Moneybomb 3669:newspaper 3639:Pete.Hurd 3631:Moneybomb 3580:harassing 3556:bad faith 3554:being in 3508:Trovatore 3453:Trovatore 3395:Trovatore 3389:. So not 3350:Trovatore 3343:. If you 3314:dick move 3292:Trovatore 3251:Trovatore 3223:Timberlax 2796:Korky Day 2741:Moneybomb 2716:Korky Day 2682:Korky Day 2638:Korky Day 2615:Moneybomb 2555:Gtstricky 2500:article. 2329:talk page 2195:Goon Noot 2134:something 2030:Happyme22 1735:User:tqbf 1578:Moneybomb 1495:Moneybomb 1437:Moneybomb 1019:Moneybomb 681:Would be 608:OK, merge 343:moneybomb 184:Moneybomb 3694:Ron Paul 3608:--- tqbf 3584:Ron Paul 3572:WP:POINT 3566:that is 3560:trolling 3527:--- tqbf 3504:deletion 3493:--- tqbf 3366:--- tqbf 3341:going in 3319:--- tqbf 3284:WP:MERGE 3266:--- tqbf 3219:campaign 3174:--- tqbf 3153:Ron Paul 3140:Ron Paul 3132:Ron Paul 3056:contribs 3044:unsigned 3005:--- tqbf 2965:--- tqbf 2938:--- tqbf 2928:contribs 2851:--- tqbf 2811:--- tqbf 2759:--- tqbf 2665:--- tqbf 2620:--- tqbf 2581:campaign 2537:contribs 2525:unsigned 2389:--- tqbf 2348:--- tqbf 2318:--- tqbf 2284:--- tqbf 2258:--- tqbf 2070:--- tqbf 1972:--- tqbf 1883:WP:CIVIL 1869:Burzmali 1859:--- tqbf 1843:--- tqbf 1817:--- tqbf 1797:Ron Paul 1715:Ron Paul 1703:--- tqbf 1619:Ron Paul 1583:--- tqbf 1504:--- tqbf 1446:--- tqbf 1403:--- tqbf 1338:Burzmali 1323:--- tqbf 1278:article. 1195:contribs 1183:unsigned 1156:--- tqbf 1126:--- tqbf 1093:--- tqbf 1068:--- tqbf 1063:Ron Paul 1024:--- tqbf 938:--- tqbf 901:Svetovid 878:--- tqbf 819:--- tqbf 673:--- tqbf 573:Connelly 553:Monsieur 443:--- tqbf 417:--- tqbf 391:--- tqbf 318:--- tqbf 298:POV fork 284:--- tqbf 244:Ron Paul 229:--- tqbf 200:--- tqbf 188:coatrack 177:Ron Paul 140:View log 64:(recall) 3758:DHowell 3690:Comment 3576:WP:GAME 3542:Comment 3444:content 3337:outcome 3310:WP:BOLD 3288:deleted 3236:Comment 3016:WP:SIZE 2980:Comment 2824:perfect 2769:WP:SIZE 2733:Comment 2703:Annyong 2189:to the 2091:JForget 1967:Comment 1946:WP:BITE 1936:Annyong 1923:Comment 1670:Annyong 1555:and yet 660:Comment 595:Annyong 523:eVolved 459:Abstain 434:Comment 257:WP:SIZE 113:protect 108:history 56:Keilana 3831:Buspar 3780:Buspar 3702:Buspar 3633:& 3619:delete 3603:WP:ANI 3306:WP:AFD 3083:Delete 3020:Buspar 2989:Buspar 2880:Buspar 2836:Buspar 2591:& 2587:. The 2569:Delete 2547:Delete 2529:Reinoe 2435:Delete 2418:Delete 2374:Buspar 2313:delete 2208:Agreed 2126:Delete 2101:Delete 2005:Golbez 1891:Buspar 1887:WP:NPA 1828:Buspar 1615:UPDATE 1457:Buspar 1334:Delete 1300:Reinoe 1210:Gang14 1206:Delete 1137:Buspar 1110:Buspar 1045:Buspar 985:Mhking 981:Delete 897:Delete 863:Buspar 772:Delete 735:Buspar 706:Buspar 647:Buspar 586:Delete 509:Delete 455:Delete 383:, and 302:Buspar 261:Buspar 247:meets 213:Buspar 165:Delete 117:delete 46:Delete 3797:Merge 3588:Ducha 3570:with 3552:WP:DE 3110:Shark 3087:Kevin 2876:WP:RS 2700:Hello 2150:Merge 2142:Coren 2081:Merge 2018:Merge 1993:Merge 1933:Hello 1929:). — 1856:. =) 1667:Hello 1529:other 1376:other 1275:Merge 1175:with 1173:Merge 977:Merge 778:with 776:merge 683:three 592:Hello 516:Shiva 346:it!-- 294:isn't 249:WP:RS 134:views 126:watch 122:links 16:< 3862:talk 3835:talk 3809:talk 3784:talk 3762:talk 3737:This 3732:GFDL 3715:Keep 3706:talk 3677:talk 3643:talk 3594:comb 3591:mps_ 3574:and 3558:and 3547:tqbf 3522:want 3512:talk 3475:talk 3457:talk 3440:said 3426:talk 3399:talk 3391:your 3354:talk 3345:know 3296:talk 3255:talk 3246:GFDL 3227:talk 3196:talk 3162:talk 3136:this 3115:face 3091:talk 3074:talk 3052:talk 3037:Keep 3024:talk 2993:talk 2953:talk 2924:talk 2909:talk 2901:KEEP 2884:talk 2866:talk 2840:talk 2800:talk 2785:talk 2720:talk 2686:talk 2642:talk 2633:Keep 2605:talk 2583:and 2571:per 2533:talk 2506:talk 2491:talk 2473:talk 2453:Keep 2444:talk 2426:talk 2378:talk 2363:talk 2337:talk 2331:. -- 2303:talk 2273:talk 2245:talk 2235:here 2224:talk 2199:talk 2183:Keep 2117:talk 2056:talk 2043:Keep 2034:talk 2009:talk 1958:talk 1927:here 1914:talk 1895:talk 1885:and 1873:talk 1832:talk 1805:talk 1747:talk 1723:talk 1690:talk 1649:talk 1635:talk 1598:talk 1519:talk 1485:talk 1476:Keep 1461:talk 1439:and 1423:talk 1392:talk 1380:this 1361:much 1342:talk 1304:talk 1296:Keep 1284:talk 1262:talk 1242:talk 1228:talk 1214:talk 1191:talk 1141:talk 1114:talk 1082:talk 1049:talk 1017:and 1004:talk 989:talk 979:and 964:talk 922:talk 905:talk 867:talk 852:talk 846:. -- 834:talk 805:talk 797:Keep 788:talk 753:talk 739:talk 725:talk 710:talk 695:talk 651:talk 642:Keep 631:talk 616:talk 577:talk 498:talk 484:talk 473:talk 406:talk 352:talk 339:Keep 306:talk 265:talk 253:WP:N 251:and 217:talk 155:talk 130:logs 104:talk 100:edit 3448:any 3221:. - 3188:you 3148:not 3144:six 3120:217 2083:to 1549:and 1539:but 1368:all 1059:had 461:. 138:– ( 3864:) 3837:) 3811:) 3803:. 3786:) 3764:) 3734:. 3708:) 3679:) 3671:. 3645:) 3625:, 3605:. 3514:) 3477:) 3459:) 3428:) 3401:) 3356:) 3348:-- 3298:) 3257:) 3249:-- 3229:) 3198:) 3164:) 3093:) 3076:) 3058:) 3054:• 3026:) 2995:) 2955:) 2926:• 2918:— 2911:) 2886:) 2868:) 2842:) 2802:) 2787:) 2722:) 2688:) 2644:) 2607:) 2539:) 2535:• 2508:) 2493:) 2475:) 2446:) 2428:) 2380:) 2365:) 2339:) 2315:. 2305:) 2275:) 2247:) 2239:-- 2226:) 2201:) 2170:TX 2119:) 2111:. 2058:) 2036:) 2011:) 1960:) 1916:) 1897:) 1875:) 1834:) 1807:) 1749:) 1725:) 1692:) 1651:) 1637:) 1600:) 1547:, 1521:) 1487:) 1463:) 1425:) 1394:) 1344:) 1320:. 1306:) 1294:* 1286:) 1264:) 1244:) 1230:) 1216:) 1193:• 1143:) 1116:) 1084:) 1051:) 1006:) 991:) 966:) 924:) 907:) 869:) 854:) 836:) 807:) 790:) 782:. 755:) 741:) 727:) 712:) 697:) 653:) 633:) 618:) 606:-- 579:) 555:dl 500:) 486:) 408:) 379:, 375:, 371:, 367:, 354:) 308:) 267:) 219:) 157:) 132:| 128:| 124:| 120:| 115:| 111:| 106:| 102:| 3860:( 3833:( 3807:( 3782:( 3760:( 3704:( 3675:( 3641:( 3510:( 3473:( 3455:( 3424:( 3397:( 3352:( 3294:( 3253:( 3225:( 3194:( 3160:( 3089:( 3072:( 3050:( 3022:( 2991:( 2951:( 2922:( 2907:( 2882:( 2864:( 2838:( 2798:( 2783:( 2718:( 2684:( 2640:( 2603:( 2531:( 2504:( 2489:( 2471:( 2442:( 2424:( 2376:( 2361:( 2335:( 2301:( 2271:( 2243:( 2237:. 2222:( 2197:( 2161:S 2138:I 2115:( 2054:( 2032:( 2007:( 1956:( 1948:( 1912:( 1893:( 1871:( 1830:( 1803:( 1769:" 1745:( 1721:( 1688:( 1647:( 1633:( 1596:( 1517:( 1483:( 1459:( 1421:( 1390:( 1340:( 1302:( 1282:( 1260:( 1240:( 1226:( 1212:( 1189:( 1139:( 1112:( 1080:( 1047:( 1002:( 987:( 962:( 920:( 903:( 865:( 850:( 832:( 803:( 786:( 751:( 737:( 723:( 708:( 693:( 649:( 629:( 614:( 575:( 496:( 482:( 471:( 404:( 350:( 304:( 263:( 215:( 153:( 142:) 136:) 98:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul Revolution - Knowledge (XXG)

Index