Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Bill Richardson


 * 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 and redirect. Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Political positions of Bill Richardson
I am nominating this article for deletion since it can already be found at Bill Richardson. Content doesn't need to be on here twice.-- Southern Texas  00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator.-- Southern Texas  00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Redirect this article title back to Bill Richardson. =Axlq 01:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete redundent Mbisanz 02:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect. Pursey 03:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Bill Richardson is a reasonably long article, and most other "(views)" articles of this nature are much longer; I think we should give this page time to expand. John Vandenberg 09:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 09:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per John Vanderberg. Give time for expansion, there is considerable potential to do so. Perhaps the article could be tagged for "Expert on the subject needed".--JayJasper 12:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant, unnecessary fork. Eusebeus 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nen  yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 01:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to his main article, don't need to separate the point of vues of candidates or other politicians from the main page.--JForget 01:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, either every candidate can have their own section for their political views, or none of them can.--Mr Beale 14:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per JForget. Bearian 02:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand; do it the other way round. Don't merge it in, split it out. — Nightstallion 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep His small section on his beliefs is not enough to show the whole aspect of all his political positions, if we get rid of this article then we should also get rid of the 15 or so other articles on political positions of the other candidates for president.--Joebengo 18:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, then get rid of them too. They don't all deserve separate articles either. The fact that other articles are malformed as well is irrelevant to the merits of this article. Please stick to the topic. =Axlq 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - as noted above, all of the Presidential candidates have separate pages for their political positions. And while some are more fleshed out than others, if one candidate deserves a page then they all do.  (And shouldn't we undo what appears to be vandalism to the page in question?  All of the positions have been blanked.) Postmodern Beatnik 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're twisting the facts, they don't all do, Tom Tancredo does not, Sam Brownback does not. The problem is that there is a belief that all the candidates need to have their own page even when it isn't practical. It is not practical to keep this page because the information is an exact copy of what already appears on the Bill Richardson article. I see no effort from anyone to expand this article and it was clearly only created to fill a void on the template. This article needs to be deleted. It appears to have been vandalized because it never had any content to begin with. Please be a little more informed before you register a strong keep.-- Southern Texas  03:17, 7 September 2007 (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.