Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Paul
At this point, I seriously overhauled the article, and I believe it is appropriate to inform the "delete" voters of this fact (one of whom contacted me unsolicited, in fact). Please note, e.g., the ''Lexington Herald-Leader'' and ''Kentucky Post'' mentioning his 1996 awards, and the KULR-TV (Billings MT) article that is fully about Rand and only mentions Ron in two sentences. When I came across http://www.highbeam.com/Search.aspx?q=%22rand+paul%22 this heavily-loaded search, including another ''Bowling Green Daily News'' piece on ophthalmology, I realized I am not going to finish this tonight. ''I haven't even touched the Senate election.'' I affirm Jonathani1's observation about the lack of any real argumentation on the "delete" side; one argument looks to me like arguing from a Google on "'william pitt the younger' -'william pitt'". Fact is, we have now gone way past being ''|the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject''; anyone could have done that at any time; and I have, in the interim, tolerated the giant cavernous echo chamber of fallacious attempts to trump the basic notability criterion by redirecting to , #Invalid criteria, (?!,) and , only to demonstrate satisfactorily to myself the flaws in the WP process. Now, as I shut up, I'd appreciate it if we could close this as "keep" instead of "no consensus default keep", if you don't mind
— User:John, 07:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:PEOPLE||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:PEOPLE||WP:ADVERT||WP:RUBBISH (Wikipedia:Notability)