Deletion of List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul (4th nomination)

Comment: I've been asked to comment on the three past RfCs (which occurred between 2007-2011, i.e. during Paul's presidential campaigns). The first RfC (Dec 2007) wanted a merge with Ron Paul but most respondents insisted the main article was too large to be merged. None of the editors, except the last respondent in the AfD, considered merging it with Political positions of Ron Paul which can easily accommodate whatever non-redundant and well-sourced content exists in this one (Pol Pos of RP is also filled with poorly sourced text). In the second RfC (April 2008), the filer argued for deletion for JUSTDONTLIKEIT-style reasons and wanted a merger with the main article. 'Keep' editors point out the weak reasons for deletion, point to the old 'Keep' consensus, and reiterate that the main article is too long to accommodate this content. Several of the 'Keep' votes seem bizarre, as they insist that the content covered in the article is notable for the mere fact that Ron Paul is notable (much of the specific content fails the most basic  standards that are now in place in editing on American politics: no RS). The third RfC (Jan 2011) wanted a merge with the main article, and some of the 'delete' votes appear motivated by a dislike for Paul (and his fans) whereas numerous 'Keep' votes insist that because Paul is himself notable that all of this legislation must be too. So, looking over these RfCs, the first reaction is "Wow, Wikipedia sure has changed". The difference between my RfC and the ones from a decade ago is that I'm very clearly and explicitly noting that most of the content on this page ''does not belong anywhere'' on Wikipedia because it's either unsourced or poorly sourced and thus fails  and  (arguments that no one explicitly laid out). The content that exists on this page could never be included on an American politics page with a sizable readership today because WE.DO.NOT.ALLOW.UNSOURCED/PRIMARY.CONTENT. Also, it needs to be kept in mind that Paul was at the time running for president, so while all this poorly sourced content may have seemed incredibly important back then, it sure isn't today. I also don't want to criticize the people who voted in those RfCs but it has to be said that I was struck by how few of the 'keep' or 'delete' votes seemed policy-based. Maybe the standards have just gotten stricter in the last 10 yrs in American politics. If  is a problem for merging, then the solution would simply be to scrub both Political positions of Ron Paul and List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul of all poorly sourced content (and there is a lot). The two articles could then easily be merged without fear of violating , and I would even bet that the merged article would be smaller than either of two status quo articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE||WP:RS||WP:DUE||WP:SIZE||WP:SIZE)