Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Ronald Reagan


 * 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.

Result was: Nominator withdrawn - I think the fork is unnecessary, and procedure was certainly not followed, but I'll take the initiative to clean it up and refactor both pages appropriately. Shadowjams (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Governorship of Ronald Reagan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a content fork (actually a straight copy-paste) out of the Ronald Reagan. I don't think there's sufficient reason to fork it out yet, and I'm not sure that the editor who did it is expanding it beyond its current scope, nor has that editor reduced the original article's section down as a result.

Would change my mind if the fork has some interest or shows sign of expanding, but I don't see that happening right now. Shadowjams (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't lose any information in deleting this fork because nothing new's been added. Shadowjams (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The main article is quite long (169K), so a fork is reasonable. It just needs to be summarized in the parent. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, I'm just saying that despite the parent article's size, the WP:SPINOUT guidelines caution against ad-hoc forks. This looks like the posterchild of that kind of concern. But I understand your point too. If this closes as keep, a lot of work needs to be done to refashion the fork article into a stand-alone. For instance, right now (absent one change of mine), the fork doesn't link to Ronald Reagan at all. Kinda strange given it's about his governorship. That's the problem with copy-paste spinouts like this. Not to mention they violate the copyright license of the previous creators because they aren't credited.


 * Keep'  It's an extremely reasonable fork, not an ad hoc fork. The period in which someone held a particular office is an obvious and natural  subdivision, used in hundreds of biographical articles. If someone took the year 1971 and made a separate article out of that while leaving the rest in the main article, that is what would be an inappropriate fork.  DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the method the fork was completed, not the topic, which is what I take the spinout guideline to refer to as well. Shadowjams (talk) 04:26, 6 April 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.