Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 26

< December 25	December 27 >

December 26 edit

Template:Ron Paul edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is consists of content which is mostly unrelated to Ron Paul. Even if it is not deleted, I still think that much of its content should be removed (like links to groups which he is a member of). Although a few other 2008 presidential candidates have them, they only use content which is relevant to the person. I suggest you compare Ron Paul's template to Barack Obama's or Rudy Giuliani's. We must also remember that Ron Paul is only a Congressman, and an underdog in the presidential race. Some of the other candidates that are more popular than him do not have templates of their own, much less templates which include information that is not relevant to the person. EvanS • talk |sign here 22:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. EvanS • talk |sign here 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Umm, this is an argument from WP:OTHERSTUFF attached to an argument that the template should be improved, which are not deletion arguments. I was the one who added several of these links, perhaps in haste, but TFD is not the proper response. It is quite useful and helpful to keep track of the various articles related directly to Paul, though some of the indirect ones need not be listed. The articles on Paul, it seems to me, are more far-flung than those of some of the other candidates, making for a greater need for a template. Finally, I think the "only a Congressman" and "underdog" arguments indicate a POV about the template contents. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply/Comment (to John J. Bulten) I think it is unfair that you accuse me of nominating this template for deletion because of "a POV about the template contents". I am not nominating this because of my political POV; if I found any template that had information this irrelevant to the person, I would nominate it as well, like I did with Hillary Clinton's a few days ago. Keep in mind that Ron Paul is a republican and Hillary Clinton is a democrat — so obviously the reasons behind me nominating this for deletion cannot be my political POV. EvanS • talk |sign here 23:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks, but I did not say your alleged POV was the cause of your nomination. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After thinking about this, and looking at Category:Politician navigational templates, I'd restrict such templates to actual heads of state (in the U.S., presidents), and not use them for senators, governors, members of parliament, etc., whether or not they are candidates for higher office. That means there are several for 2008 presidential candidates that warrant deletion, including Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_23#Template:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wasted, but that consideration would be proper for the category talk page. Why don't those who feel the same as Wasted go neutral on this one and then obtain consensus at the category talk as to which ones should be deleted? As I see that page there is no warrant whatsoever for creating an exclusion requirement; it seems that anyone, pol or not, who has a threshold amount of mazelike article space could merit a template. Removing the template would be a disimprovement. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a candidate, so a collection of links to things about his history and things that he is a member of makes perfect sense. Dicklyon (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a policy or even a guideline and people need to stop thinking it is. While it often applies, sometimes you need to step back, and take a look at the bigger picture, use other things that work well as an example to strive for. This.... its just pure nonsense, and predictably the people who have latched onto it scream political malice in its defense.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERNOM: "If several people already have showed support for the nominator, adding nothing but a statement in support of the nominator may not contribute significantly to the conclusion made by the closing administrator." John J. Bulten (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of these articles aren't particularly related to Ron Paul, and so a navigation template isn't needed. Unlike, say, Hillary Clinton, we don't have twenty articles about him, and nor should we... Terraxos (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In both this and the other case, the number of articles "about" the party is hotly disputed; another said six about Clinton, and I count about ten. By the same standard I get about eight on Paul. However, key point: I wouldn't have any good idea how much material there is about Clinton or Paul without the templates. I read the HRC article without the template and only found three other articles. THAT is the very reason these templates are necessary. Further, many templates contain navigational info not directly related to the topic, but which might provide useful background (such as GOP). None of these are reasons for deletion, and deletion disimproves WP usability. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Reply (to John J. Bulten and Dicklyon) Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a policy, and I still do not see what on that page I would be violating by nominating this for deletion. And contrary to Dicklyon, I do not see how links to things he is a member of make "perfect sense." For example, I do not know what good it is to have a link that points to the Libertarian Party. Personal templates should be restricted to content relative to that person. It would be one thing if it was an article about Ron Paul running with the Libertarian Party. But just having any link to something like that does not tell us anything. I think by the time we cut this template down to links to article that are directly relevant to Ron Paul, we would be left with very little content. Oh, and by the way John, I think it's kind of funny that you accuse me of having a "POV about the template contents" because if anyone had a conflict of interest I think it would be you. (see here and look at Ron Paul sections.). But please, do not take this as a personal attack. EvanS • talk |sign here 20:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks, but nor did I say you had a COI; and as you note, I properly disclosed my potential COI. I've been maintaining Template:United States presidential election, 2008 for awhile now and I haven't complained that it links to Libertarian Party, FEC, or gubernatorial elections, which are only indirectly related. Templates are navigation tools. It is perfectly reasonable that a reader of the Ron Paul article when looking for related content would be aided by a link to the Libertarian Party, for obvious reasons. And again, I'm disappointed that, if you think Paul and Clinton have too many links, you chose the full-deletion route rather than the wiser fix-it route. What did you intend to do with Giuliani, Obama, Romney, and especially Edwards with 4 bluelinks and 3 redlinks? If you don't put Edwards on TFD, I'd begin to question why you are ignoring the fix-it route. Would you mind reading User:Kazvorpal#Truth, not silence?
  - I don't know what the "Truth, not silence" bit has to do with this ... everything in one of these nav templates is typically in a blue link in the corresponding main article, it's not like anything is being hidden. And the Clinton case, there is a Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton that also allows readers to find related articles. My feeling's just that nav templates should be reversed for classical big encyclopedia topics like World War II or Franklin D. Roosevelt or Nuclear technology or the like; I don't see presidential wannabees as making the grade. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I just want to repeat that without the template, it is much harder for the (many) interested readers to find all the Paul content. This is true of anyone with more than say 250K of sourceable content throughout mainspace. TFD is the wrong way to handle that. By the way, two other Paul articles are on AFD, and another one was last week, and in each case the argument is similar to this (i.e., that content should be deleted rather than fixed, or shoved into already overlong articles). It would be more helpful for all if the deletion proposers talked to the primary editors first, rather than urge to merge. John J. Bulten (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If your problem with this template being deleted is not being able to find all the related articles, then we could just create a Ron Paul category. And also, I was not the one who nominated the Giuliani and Romney templates for deletion. EvanS • talk |sign here 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]