| Revision as of 08:15, 27 March 2013 editCavarrone (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers94,972 edits →Post-presidency of Bill Clinton: k← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:22, 27 March 2013 edit undoDream Focus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers39,009 edits →Post-presidency of Bill ClintonNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| *'''Keep'''--] (]) 07:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''--] (]) 07:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''', legitimate ] from the parent article ]. ] (]) 08:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | *'''Keep''', legitimate ] from the parent article ]. ] (]) 08:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Merge''' I'm looking at both articles to see what this one has that the other one doesn't already have in it. Environment, Sestak, and Soccer are the only sections in this article, which don't have the content found in the main article at ]. Anything worth keeping, could be stuck over there. I don't see how this side article expands enough new information to be worth keeping. If the main article got too long, I could understand breaking off part of it to a different article, but there is no reason to do it if most of the information is found in both places. ] 08:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:22, 27 March 2013
Post-presidency of Bill Clinton
- Post-presidency of Bill Clinton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is redundant with the section "Post-presidential career", in the article Bill Clinton. Perhaps a merge of any detail not already covered at the BC page. Also, BC gets about 9,000 hits per day, while PPoBC gets about 40.GabeMc 01:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Isn't that the point of WP:SUBARTICLE? Praemonitus (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - My first instinct was to merge and redirect to Bill Clinton, until I saw the amount of content in this article. This seems to be a perfectly appropriate SPINOFF article. - MrX 03:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. - Yeah, perhaps this was a good split-off, but I'm only seeing about 800-1000 words that are not included verbatim or paraphrased at BC. Also, the BC bio is just over 8,000 words, so its not like it couldn't stand to be a bit larger. Also, I think with the right editing, this could be merged back into the BC article, and you would likely see an increase of only about 300-500 words at BC. GabeMc 03:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Mr. X has it right on. This is an excellent place to break an over-long Bill Clinton article; a sub-page. Sourced to the max, no GNG issues. Carrite (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep: Disruptive nomination, user has slapped a tag of some sort on over a dozen pages I created or significantly edited in the page. Also, keep because the Bill Clinton article is too long and the post-presidency of Bill Clinton not only is a reasonable content fork, it even passes GNG on its own pbp 05:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep: also per MrX. And this does smack of some tendentious disruption aimed at the article creator. Heiro 06:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep--Scaldjosh (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, legitimate WP:SPINOUT from the parent article Bill Clinton. Cavarrone (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Merge I'm looking at both articles to see what this one has that the other one doesn't already have in it. Environment, Sestak, and Soccer are the only sections in this article, which don't have the content found in the main article at Bill_Clinton#Post-presidential_career. Anything worth keeping, could be stuck over there. I don't see how this side article expands enough new information to be worth keeping. If the main article got too long, I could understand breaking off part of it to a different article, but there is no reason to do it if most of the information is found in both places. Dream Focus 08:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)