Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Nancy Pelosi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was merge to Nancy Pelosi. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Nancy Pelosi

This article is a content fork of the political positions section that currently exists in the Nancy Pelosi article. The Nancy Pelosi article is not overly long and that section still exists there. This article has not been budded off from that article per summary style but rather exists parallel to it, so there is no reason for this article to exist. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, encyclopedic. Ottre 23:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. There are two process problems here. First, User:Levineps created the subarticle and left a summary section in the main article with this edit, with no edit summary explanation, no discussion with other editors on the talk page, no nothing. That's not right, any major change like this requires justification and consultation and consensus ahead of time. Second, User:Loonymonkey has both restored the full section in the main article with this edit, and also nominated the subarticle for deletion claiming the content is duplicated. That's not a reasonable explanation of what's in question here. Looneymonkey is correct, however, that the unsplit Pelosi article isn't too long by size standards, as it's 29 kB (4772 words) "readable prose size", well within guidelines. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"That's not right, any major change like this requires justification and consultation and consensus ahead of time."

Not so. However, there's no reason it couldn't have been reverted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the main article. Pelosi's article is not so long that sub-articles need to be spun off. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I almost always agree with vicious little canines.--MONGO 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back, since the first half of the merge is already done. This didn't need to be split. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RD back. Current article not unwieldy. If more of the sections turn into text longer than the current 2-3 sentance single 'graf, reconsider. Bongo matic 05:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.