Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of Harry Reid (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus to delete, a merge/redirect can be discussed on the talk page if deemed necessary.  Sandstein  06:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of Harry Reid
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is already a fairly large Criticism section in the Harry Reid article; Criticisms of Harry Reid essentially duplicates that information and throws in a couple more. I was tempted to just redirect it to Harry Reid but figured an AfD would probably be more appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has plenty of reliable sources to pass GNG. If somebody thinks that the Criticism section of the Harry Reid article is too long, then s/he should trim it down. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  13:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that it's too long, it's that it's duplicated elsewhere. Why do we need two copies? 28bytes (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think length is an issue here. In fact, this article was originally created to conform with WP:SS: "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place." According to this tool, the character count of the main page section is 9,305, while the character count for the spin-off article is 19,340—more than two times as large. —Eustress talk 15:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. And the main Harry Reid page "Criticism" section can now be tightened down even further and more rigidly policed. Carrite (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, no reason to have the same information twice. "Criticism" articles are never appropriate unless the amount of criticism becomes too much for the parent article; this isn't to that point.  Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a sub-page of the main Harry Reid article established to keep the main article of readable length and from becoming unbalanced. Obviously, this is a hotly contested Senate seat in an election year, so the mice will play and the page needs to be closely monitored. But from the standpoint of inclusion-worthiness, this is an easy KEEP call. Carrite (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "unbalanced"? Not NPOV, or just too much text in relation to the rest of the article? 28bytes (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge: Merge it into the main article. --TIAYN (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - well sourced. This is too long to merge back into main article, and if you try to trim it down, you will run into POV issues. Racepacket (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems keepable, but rename to Criticism of Harry Reid to match others in Category:Criticisms of living persons articles.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that dropping the "s" is a sensible suggestion. Racepacket (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2010 (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.