Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulville, Texas

Paulville, Texas

Paulville, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The organization's website is down ([1]); this appears to be a non-notable flash in the pan. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 20:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete That's a lot of news coverage; however, I'm finding almost nothing about this town outside of what's already sourced. Given also that their site has gone down, I'd say this is probably a one-event thing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Ron Paul. Seems a bit WP:CRYSTALline, but just enough of it is sourced that it can make a decent addition to Ron Paul's page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The site is probably down (it only happened today) due to the NYX article; but even its being down was newsworthy (Politico)! I still haven't been able to add the reactions of Andrew Sullivan or the Seattle Stranger. Has attracted about a dozen editors in a very short time (I did ask a couple of them for help). It would be silly to predicate an AFD on one hiccup in a mom-and-pop website that gets hit by NYX. JJB 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC) I see nothing at WP:GROUP that excludes Paulville from WP as a planned community. JJB 21:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to Ron Paul or his campaign article. As it stands the planned community is a crystal ball. Another option might be to Rename to Ron Paul Revolution and merge in all the random Ron Paul admiration efforts that well sourced but of questionable notability (money bombs, the blimp, Trevor Lyman, etc). Burzmali (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CBALL. Some recent announcements, but no indication this will actually move forward. --Dhartung | Talk 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CBALL. --Jedravent (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have added a mention of Paulville to the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 page. This seems like an appropriate place for the information. --YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 02:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Is the move for deletion Rush Limbaugh's latest chaos project? James1906 (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No. I volunteered for Paul in Iowa and South Carolina, donated, and voted for him in Texas. Mainly I'm doing this because I don't want people to be like "damn Paultards trying to make articles about every little thing associated with the campaign grumble grumble". Also something like this that results in one or two conference calls and then disappears really isn't worth its own article. --YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 12:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I don't believe in covering every little thing, just the notable things. To use a tangential observation from WP:OTHERSTUFF, I don't think Change you can Xerox has borne up as notable. JJB 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CBALL and WP:FUTURE. Damn Paultards. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: As often, it appears I need to give the long keep argument.
  • Nominator did not present any AFD alternatives suggested by WP:DEL: discussion, tagging, proposing merge, or proposing deletion. Nomination is out of process.
  • Nominator acted on the same day that the website went down and then used that as an issue. We have no means of knowing the significance of the downed site for a few days (five may not be sufficient). Nomination is premature on that ground and others.
  • Nominator started essentially by arguing notability, and only hinting at crystal-ball speculation. The fact that deletionists have moved to crystal-ball en masse indicates that my reference to WP:GROUP does establish notability. There is no question that "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". At least four sources, mentioned above, have content which has not yet been added to the article.
  • Nominator then began a merge to the campaign, suggesting that AFD was not presented single-mindedly. Nominator should either change !vote to merge (which should have been done by merge proposal), or disavow the edit to the campaign, to be consistent. Failure to do either indicates double-mindedness.
  • As to crystal balls:
    • First, have you read the guideline? (One editor provided two links to the same guideline as if two guidelines!) It doesn't forbid the current state of planned communities or planned buildings (have you seen this?). It relates to (1) future scheduled events, (2) future preassigned names of events, (3) future history speculation. It does not relate to discussion of current events that also contains current discussion of proposals of future activity: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." The article properly describes the current state of the project and, occasionally, the current state of the project's future plans, fully referenced in place. There is no sourcing whatsoever from the Paulville forum, where much more info about the future plans is available (there are sometimes reliable sources reporting on the forum of course).
    • Speculation of deletionists, that organization appears a flash in the pan, that announcements yield no indication this will move forward, that org consists of one or two conference calls "and then disappears", are in fact the type of speculation that WP:NOT forbids, and that WP:ATA#CRYSTAL specifically forbids-- even quoting "flash in the pan" as the epitome of the argument to avoid!
    • Emphasis added: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and editors should avoid using one when commenting in a deletion discussion .... Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not."
  • As to merging, this is very simply neither a part of Ron Paul's biography nor part of his campaign. Period. If anything, it's part of the Ron Paul Revolution (a topic which also got deleted, userfied, and deleted again). I would accept consensus recreation of, and merger to, Ron Paul Revolution, without prejudice to keeping the articles like Lyman which are notable in their own right. If more editors would get behind that proposal, it could easily work as a compromise. Other moves are possible.
  • The profanity and generic personal attack made by two editors above might be taken by some as applying to me. I created this article not because it was associated with the campaign (in fact Paul personally disregarded it), but because there was a notable new topic which had sufficient coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Since then many more sources have covered the item. Again, deletion is way premature.
  • Almost unrelated: The "move for deletion" chaos project does appear to be in full force. I am compiling a list of Paul-related AFDs to determine if they face a disproportionate amount of deletion attempts. I think some of the recent AFDs do statistically indicate unconscious bias by the deletionists. However, I did anticipate that someone would AFD sooner or later, which is why I had notified a few potentially interested editors (both pro-Paul and not) of the article's creation, in order to determine consensus early. To my surprise, none of them suggested AFD, but they and several more editors that came along made a number of positive contributions. Therefore nominator did not make note of this early consensus to build. Since I have already performed this early notification, I am not notifying the other editors of this article during this AFD, although it would be proper for the nominator or someone else to do so.
  • Verbum sat: I advise the closer of my belief that this may be a case for applying the rule that result is based on strength of arguments, not vote count. JJB 14:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I just added another thorough source (Philadelphia Newspaper), making significant coverage by eleven reporters at ten independent media so far (plus one political party chapter, and three primary sources to flesh out). The argument that all these sources are discussing something either patently nonnotable or presently nonexistent is very odd. JJB 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, that is a very well thought out response. While I can't challenge your verbosity, let me take a stab at why this article should be removed (be it through deletion, merger or rename). Let's run through the time line:

1. A bunch of RP supporters get together and decide it would be a good idea to make their own community where the man can't keep them down.
2. RP blogs and conference calls go out to rally the troops to their noble cause.
3. Anti-RP blogs start calling them all a bunch of "Paultards".
4. A handful of independent newspapers catch wind of it and report on the story as an offshoot of Ron Paul's campaign, frequently with tongue planted firmly in cheek.
5. RP himself actually hear about it, and calls his supporters a bunch of knuckleheads.
6. The project begins to collapse, total lapsed time? Maybe a month.

In the end, unless the supporters turn on their idol, nothing happens. Do we really want an article on something that didn't happen? Its association with RP was the only reason it made the papers (much to RP's chagrin I'm sure). But, if you really want to play the wiki-lawyer, try WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:MADEUP and WP:MEMORIAL, as this article toes the line on each of them to some extent. Burzmali (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Michael. In response: (1) I would hope my choice for verbosity is well-supported by use of good argument; (2) Please avoid careless characterizations like "the man" and "idol"; (3) Elapsed time is at least 4 months now, including the time getting the supporters together; (4) Whether reporting is an "offshoot" is debatable; (5) your #5 is quite the mischaracterization; (6) your #6 and "something that didn't happen" are more crystal ball reading-- something did happen and was reported widely as such; (7) even if association with Paul were the reason for reportage, the depth of the reportage indicates a topic breakout, not a merge; and (8) your references to other policies are quite bemusing, as the 4-month period and the actual reported activity indicate this is "not (just) news", and "made-up" stuff must meet notability criteria same as anything, and "memorial" is thoroughly inapplicable. But I repeat that your proposed compromise is acceptable if other editors would get on it.

FYI I performed a little WP:OR (for background purposes only, of course) and called Mr. Ebacher on his Whois-reported phone. He explained that all the initial 50 shares have been bought, by 18 shareholders; that some of the shares are available for resale; that the property has in fact been owned in the name of the community since the (apparently March) purchase (as reported); that some expect to begin moving next month, while others are holding the land more speculatively; that in addition to shareholders' meetings, an event where most shareholders can be on-site simultaneously is being considered (note this is current reporting, not future reporting); that surrounding parcels are also for sale; and that information on plans for similar Paulville communities in other states can be had at the forum (which of course I've deliberately not followed). Given that, it would be improper for any indulgence in speculation, as to either success or failure, to have any effect as a deletion argument, per the clear language of WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. I would hope that, unlike about six deletionists, I don't make use of crystal-ball arguments, only of extant reported activity. Since, however, there may well be consensus to change WP:CBALL to apply to this, because there's apparently a widespread misconception that it does apply, then get consensus at its page and come back here and renominate. JJB 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I've kind of avoided this thing, but I think Wikipedia:DOSPAGWYA applies here. --YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 14:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think anyone will read that rant?? --Ave Caesar (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete until built. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, per WP:NOREASON, why? That question goes to everybody BTW. JJB 22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I thought the reason "because it doesn't exist yet" was implied... Stifle (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying! The cooperative does exist. The designated land does exist. Since the discussion currently stands at 6 delete and 5 keep or merge (or 6 if you count YixilTesiphon's activity as a second-string merge !vote), I would hate for an apparent consensus to build around a grapevine misconception (such as CBALL applying). Burzmali's narrative aside, the facts are: (1) certain (eighteen) people formed an organizational entity at an April meeting; (2) the organization spent perhaps in the tens of thousands to purchase land on Ebay; (3) the organization has been called "the cooperative", "Paulville TX", or "Paulville.org"; (4) confusingly, "Paulville.org" may also refer to the website, and "Paulville TX" may also refer to the undeveloped land or the planned town; (5) FOURTEEN news media have reported on the org's purchase or other past or present related org activities (many through authorized blogs), and the New York Times even hosted the 80-minute conceptual video! Perhaps the reason people think CBALL applies is that the new town itself, also called "Paulville TX", does not exist as a town. Well, I've made a significant disambiguation to the lead to clarify that. The topic of this article was not consciously meant to be the nonexistent town, but the extant organization and its extant land, both of which are designated "Paulville TX" (I apologize if I miscommunicated that). I'd appreciate contributors commenting on this disambiguation. JJB 14:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - One sentence blog entries, followed by a quote, are not "significant coverage", please don't pretend that they are reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Burzmali (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Please don't pretend": The source you allude to had three original sentences, not one; I didn't hold that it was significant or that the paper was large or that it was presented for the purposes of establishing notability; I did hold that it was a 14th or 15th reliable source per WP:V: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control"; that newspaper is 130 years old; I didn't contest your reversion (yet); you and I are perhaps both straining at gnats. JJB 15:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)