Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Prescott's involvement with specific events


 * 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 keep. TerriersFan is correct that 'merge and delete' is not an acceptable outcome to support (it destroys the edit history, which violates the GFDL). He also doesn't go quite far enough, because there are in fact only two possible 'choices' - keep or delete. AfD does not govern merges. After an AfD merging or redirecting may be done based on discussion that took place during the AfD, sometimes by the closing admin, but it is still effectively a 'keep' result as far as the AfD goes - that its content may be moved elsewhere or its own content may be replaced with a redirect is secondary.

Clearly many believe that this should not be a separate article, but it is up to them to discuss, perform and defend the merge in the normal way if they want to. Apart from that we have very few editors arguing for actual deletion, and 'keep (in some form)' is the only possible summary of the consensus here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

John Prescott's involvement with specific events
I have no sympathy with John Prescott, and do not support his Party. Nevertheless, this article appears to be a political attack, and therefore non-encyclopedic. --Anthony.bradbury 19:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - This article was split off, following discussion, from the main John Prescott article. See here. The content is referenced and sourced, encyclopaedic and is the result of extensive discussion. Nominator was too quick off the mark (9 minutes after creation?). TerriersFan 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Article's author  Srose  (talk)  20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - content is useful and referenced, and saves overloading the main article. Blowski 19:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - and merge back into the main article. No justification for the split - these are major events in Prescott's career which should be included in the main article.  See WP:POVFORK.  Lancsalot 20:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete. Individual controversies (e.g. Temple etc.) may merit their own articles, if necessitated by lack of space. The title is also terrible- there is often a pretty good correlation between the unwieldyness of an article's title and its requirement to exist. This is a VERY unwieldy title.....John Prescott could do with some work, largely due to POV complications arising from his current difficulties. But this isn't the way to go about it. Badgerpatrol 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit-conflict merge back and delete per Lancsalot and Badgerpatrol. It's completely unnecessary and has the potential to be a WP:POVFORK.  Srose   (talk)  20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete. If necessary, splitting of the article could be better achieved along chronological lines. Road Wizard 21:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Merge and delete is not an available option. The choices are Keep, Delete or 'Merge and redirect'. TerriersFan 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt if it's really necessary to erect a redirect for a title that is very, very unlikely to ever be searched for, but redirects are cheap, I guess. Badgerpatrol 01:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason that 'Delete and Merge' is not an option is that it destroys the edit history. Delete is fine as is Keep but if you want to merge it has to be 'Merge and Redirect' for that reason not for any searching benefits. This has been discussed on AfD recently. TerriersFan 02:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Some thoughts. This section was starting to overwhelm the original article. It was becomming hard to navigate around the article. There was certainly no intention to 'sanitise' the article; the new article is clearly linked and the link can be made more prominent if required. Inevitably, the section is going to get much longer, and the problem worsening.


 * It certainly is not a content fork - the guidelienes say:
 * 'Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material.'


 * The criticism of the title is a matter of no importance; it was chosen to try to be NPOV. If the length is truely of any import then it can be renamed John Prescott: controversies or whatever.


 * There is no point in saying that the article needs attention or this or that section needs spinning off unless an editor is prepared to do the work.


 * If this section is simply merged back then not only will the problem remain; it will get worse. What is needed is a concrete proposal backed up by some editorial action.


 * Let me emphasise that I will lose no sleep whatever happens to this article. If the split is undone; so be it but unless someone else is prepared to take an initiative then an article on a major political figure will progressively decline. TerriersFan 21:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - On balance, I think that TerriersFan's arguments hold true. Merging this section back will more than double the length of the article. If any of the dissenting editors be bold and Badgerpatrol spins out topics or Road Wizard splits the article on chronological lines then I will change my 'vote'. The point is that TerriersFan has identified a problem and done something about it. It is easy to criticise but less easy to do something about it. BlueValour 23:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently, ALL the controversies that Prescott has been involved in lie in this separate article- how therefore is the main John Prescott article NPOV? I am not criticising TF's boldness- but he has got this one wrong. For a start, from what I can see even with the controversial material back in, JP was only 34 kb- reasonably big, but hardly enormous. Moreover, WP:Article size specifically states that an adequate summary of the material must be left in the article proper after a split- this is not currently the case (and it is imply not appropriate in this case to spin out all the negative stuff anyway, in my view). John Prescott could do with some improvement, but I do not see any reason to take this kind of drastic action, although I am not criticising anyone and TF has gone about things correctly (it's particularly laudable that he advertised this AfD on the main JP talk page). It's a straw man to criticise other editors for pointing out a mistake. Badgerpatrol 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair point about the main article summary; I think that TF got that wrong - I have now expanded John Prescott to list all the incidents and toughened the text. Nothing is now concealed! Do you agree that the main article is now NPOV? I would add that with JPs disappearance over airport terrorism, alledged links to his son's company etc to be added this is going to grow and grow! BlueValour 01:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The section in John Prescott is now a wikified bulletpoint-list of controversies (listed under the bizarre heading "Involvement with specific events") involving Prescott, with very brief descriptions (some of which are rather juvenile (and inaccurate), e.g. Brit Awards, 1998; dockers cool him down). I do not agree that this is an adequate summary, nor is it NPOV, and it is certainly not an improvement over what was already there. Other editors can obviously have a look at it and judge for themselves. The removal of the "controversies" section wholesale was a mistake, but one that is easily remedied at the moment by re-merging the recently excised material. If the two articles remain separate, the problem is really going to grow and grow. Badgerpatrol 01:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The controversies, particlarly the very recent controversies, were disproportionally dominating the main article in a manner that was not encyclopedic. It was right to separate them out. They are currently, and imo correctly, summarised and linked in the main article. The issue was discussed on the talk page. Viewfinder 03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue was indeed discussed on the talk page- but there was no consensus for carrying out the split. Badgerpatrol 01:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether you call it a Merge or not, I say drag all this article's text - manually by cut and paste, if need be - back to John Prescott and trim it down to size, then Delete this article. Articles about ultra-controversial people like Ann Coulter and Tom Cruise manage to get along just fine without branching off into a separate article for their controversies. wikipediatrix 13:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 14:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, keeping all the information. "Controversy" is what politicians are about, so I don't see much of a point in a split between a head article about a politician and an article about their argumentative positions taken, public conduct, or private conduct that reflects on their prudence or leadership.  This is all politics; it's why politicians are notable.  Standing alone, this page is almost devoid of context; I had to read down a ways before I even figured out what country he was from.  Merge it back and save all the referenced information. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to John Prescott, summarise the whole thing as this is unencyclopedic, unless cleanup. We don't need a single article for controversies of a politicain. --Ter e nce Ong (T 14:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the split was raised on the talk page. A point against it was posted, to which Terriers Fan responded. No further posts against the move were forthcoming over the next few days, so the move was in order. If the move is now to be reverted, then that is OK provided the material involved is heavily trimmed. If we are to retain this sort of material in high volume then its place is in separate articles. Viewfinder 18:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Without trying to start an argument, and simply for the sake of accuracy, your "over the next few days" comment is not quite correct. The split was carried out a little over 24 hours after Terriers Fan's 2nd comment. However, I am not sure as to what bearing the timings of comments would have on this discussion. Road Wizard 23:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Content belongs in the main John Prescott article, preferably with judicious trimming. Espresso Addict 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to John Prescott per Smerdis of Tlon, with editing and trimming if needed. Should the article be kept, I would suggest moving it to a title such as "John Prescott controversies". "Involved with events" seems as ambiguous a title as the "Montgomery Burns Award For Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence". SliceNYC 21:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete outright or Merge to John Prescott, with ample editing and trimming. This disorganized list of controvies Prescott has been involved in is too POV and attackish for Wikipedia.-- danntm T C 03:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename as it's currently a horrible title. Something along the lines of John Prescott controversies.  The article could do with cleaning up but Prescott is well-known in the UK more as a figure of fun than for his serious career so an article should exist.  If it were to be merged back, the incidents themselves would swamp the main article. MLA 09:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to John Prescott; "specific events" is a bit vague reason to split an article. If kept, has to be renamed. I was surprised this article didn't start with "John Prescott's involvement with specific events (2006) is a postmodern murder mystery novel written by..." =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge back to the main article per, especially, wikipediatrix. Eusebeus 20:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very useful digest. Merging would affect the balance of the mian article.IXIA 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. - 81.179.119.58 05:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Everything in here appears referenced. Odd name for an article, but since it's a split off from an existing article, that explains it. The guy is notable enough, and it appears that the events in this article are reasonably noteworty too. Herostratus 17:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - in view of the debate that the name of this article has caused it may be of interest for me to explain to where it came from. The Isaac Newton series of articles is generally used as an example of good naming conventions. The subsidary articles start Isaac Newton's; for example Isaac Newton's early life and achievements. Hence I extrapolated to John Prescott (not that the two are comparable :-) ). I also wanted to avoid a POV title such as 'controversies' in the hope that the succesful intervention by Prescott in an event or incident can also be included. Having said all that, the mood of the Community is obviously for a title that is much shorter and snappier. My inclination, if this article is kept, is John Prescott: Contentious events which is briefer without being too POV. TerriersFan 22:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that merging all the information back into the main article would greatly affect its balance. It's well referenced and I believe the detail is encyclopedic and warranted. Changing the title to TerriersFan's suggestion would be fine, still remain NPOV, and I agree be more descriptive and less unwieldy. TransUtopian 18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused- remerging this information with John Prescott affects the balance of that article- but removing it wholesale somehow does not have the same effect? Badgerpatrol 18:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete.This is a pretty obvious hatchet job - a list of all the controverseries without any balancing achievements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arce (talk • contribs)
 * 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.