Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Rational Economics and Education

:{{la|Foundation for Rational Economics and Education}} ([{{fullurl:Foundation for Rational Economics and Education|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Rational Economics and Education}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Political organization that appears to be solely related to Ron Paul with no notability of its own. All meaningful information already in the Ron Paul article and redirect attempt made, but redirect was reverted. -- Dougie WII (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. A minor mention in Ron Paul's article is sufficient. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: As of now, all objections do not address the significant additional content I've put in. I believe the independent notability is now established by its links to The New Republic newsletter controversy, three grants related to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the election of TX-14#1996, and the allegations of a link to the 9/11 Public Discourse Project. The fact that these relations may also involve Paul is as insignificant as any other corporation being deleted in favor of all activity flowing to its founder. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per both above...--Camaeron (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Ron Paul's ownership of the foundation is insufficient reason to delete the article. The Austrian views promoted therein are held by other notable economists such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, David D. Friedman, and Walter Block, to name a few - not "solely" Representative Ron Paul. JLMadrigal (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Um, a few things here. First, the zany history, in that this was deleted on Feb 3 and my memory is that there was much more content. Two days ago I requested a history-only restoration of the prior article, but on first glance the history restored doesn't jibe with my memory of the article either. In short, I don't believe the decision should be made on the current version and the current history alone. Second, I did ask Dougie to hold off on sudden activity until the restored history could be reviewed, which he didn't. But getting to the content, Dougie's insertion of the content into Ron Paul did not fit neatly or flow well with the prior content in that section either, so the appeals to that article are inappropriate; there is more content than fits well in the parent article. Additionally, there is more that can be added, and FREE is also connected to the 2-month-old newsletter controversy, so there is volatility and deletion should not happen blindly in that context either. FREE is an independent Austrian economics think tank and NEFL is a significant media arm with many published videos unrelated to Paul directly. Since the closer will review the deletion arguments against the article's independence at closing time and not currently, I trust Madrigal and I will have time to fix this and all will be well. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I am told the whole history has been restored now; I have been remembering a different article. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Add: Paul plugged FREE in his latest campaign video, now also reflected in article per Wash Post. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ron Paul per nominator's arguments. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Per WP:PERNOM, would you mind stating your own arguments, especially since the article has undergone so much change in the interim as to be an essentially different article? John J. Bulten (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• It's more that I thought the nominator's arguments support a merge, but I don't think the article should be deleted since it does have some sources. With that in mind I'll clarify my nomination to keep or merge. Snthdiueoa (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into :Ron Paul or delete altogether - no evidence of notability presented. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Mike, you seem to want to go into Round 42 of the discussion: whether the coverage in New York Times, Wash Post, and New Republic is reliable or significant. I recognize there is a bit less here than with other articles that have survived AFD, but even if you run with that, I'd hope you'd recognize that we've found enough during this AFD to be able to reasonably request being given another week or two to improve sourcing, whether Madrigal chimes in, or whether something turns up in book searches. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• reply the coverage is of Ron Paul; the organization is of no notability outside of its connection with him. AfD discussions are not meant to last an infinite period while people scrounge for evidence to back up their opinions. This is one of only four AfDs left which are this stale. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - marginal; there are lots of sources, but they appear to concern Ron Paul, not this group. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.