Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Newt Gingrich


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Political positions of Newt Gingrich

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article appears to exist only as a vehicle for a political campaign's messaging and viewpoints. The article is non-neutral at its core, and provides undue coverage to a declared Presidential (US) candidate. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is an acceptable fork of Newt Gingrich as it easily meets WP:GNG and there is a huge precedent for "Political positions of..." articles. If there are neutrality issues, I don't see that any attempt was made on the talk page to rectify them. Location (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was the originator of this page, created because it was starting to take up too much space in Newt Gingrich. The article is a vehicle for all relevant perspectives on Gingrich's public record, pro and con, and the article contains both. Most 2008 U.S. presidential candidates were the subject of such pages, which is why I thought to create this one. And more 2012 candidates should have them. Stargat (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Listcruft. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - he was a transformational Speaker of the House of Representatives, well-known for his intellect, as well as evolving viewpoints on political issues. His views are extremely well-sourced, as is the article.  A fork here is inevitable with such a historical and mercurial figure. It's a decent article. Disclosure: I am a Democrat. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep On a practical level, Newt Gingrich is already a fairly long article so it makes sense to have fork sections like this. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A legitimate fork. Per Location, there is much precedent for such articles. No grounds for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep at all costs This article has a lot of detail about Newt's political positions that simply could not be crammed into the main article for lack of space. I think it's ridiculous that anyone would even seriously consider deleting all this info just when the American people need all the info they can get about possible Presidential candidates.  I suggest keeping the article and ending this whole debate.  And no, I'm not one of his supporters, but I do want all this info to be easily available to everyone in the USA.  (Also, has anyone noticed that the original AfD request was politically motivated?)  -- An American ultranationalist 67.169.177.176 (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd think that those who oppose him would want his views known no less than those who support him, assuming they oppose him for reasons actually related to his positions. postdlf (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think not. When I was studying for the bar examination, the best advice I got was not to love them or hate them ("them" being ficticious parties).  Whether I like Newt matters not. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you thought my point was, but what I was trying to say was that it doesn't make sense to assume that only a pro-Gingrich POV could motivate such an article. It reminds me of the recent Stephen Harper AFD, in which the delete !voters tried to characterize articles on the policy positions of the Harper administration as political advertising simply for describing those positions.  postdlf (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Political position of X person articles are valid topic. If there is any POV dispute, that should be edited to make it NPOV, that is not a reason for deletion. --Reference Desker (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2011 (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.