Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Lisa Murkowski (2nd nomination)

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) buidhe 11:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Lisa Murkowski (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)

Wikipedia:NOTPROMOTION BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Follows the precedent of creating a separate article for a politician's political positions when the section becomes unruly. — Informant16 (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back/undo split Split from Lisa Murkowski was not discussed and unnecessary. While the article was long, what remains there is a mere 8,400 characters of prose. It doesn't make sense to split off the bulk of the article and all of its most relevant content, leaving something relatively short and less informative behind (much of the length is now the electoral history boxes). If the original section was "unruly", doesn't this merely force readers to go to a separate page that's equally "unruly"? An option when something is "unruly" is to trim the excess deatils, like the many listings of bills she cosponsored (rather than sponsored) – it's been over 3,400 such bills – or other stuff that's years of specific news bits rather than what she in particular has had influence on. Another option is to reorganize so there's a "Tenure" section with actions taken that aren't so much political positions. And if you are going to split something, for goodness's sake, please use WP:Summary style (per Wikipedia:Splitting#Step 6: Clean_up!) so the main article isn't just devoid of all of this relevant content! Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Jesus Christ. I am not opposed to writing a summary for her political positions section with a link, as I did with the Susan Collins article. Problem is, within minutes of me splitting it, before I can even write a summary, I get a notification for this deletion request. Why would I write an edit summary that might get yanked in a span of a few days depending on how the votes go for this? It was "unnecessary" to split it even though I can give over twenty examples of the exact same thing being done for other senators on this very site, with less than a 1/8 of those instances being myself. You complain that the split "was not discussed" as though that's an obligation of editors. Trevdna split content on the Mitch McConnell article without consensus and there wasn't a single deletion request on Political positions of Mitch McConnell. So when someone else splits an article, it doesn't get contested; only when I do it. Informant16 (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I agree this was a very, very poor AFD. Obviously describing positions is not prohibited promotion and the content should not be deleted outright. This is most definitely not directed at you, it just happens to be what people saw first. I’m sorry I didn’t heed the time stamps and did not consider that a summary style may be forthcoming. I don’t think the McConnell article is the best comparison though since it is still very long without the split, while this one is much shorter with respect to biographical info. Just because some pages are split doesn’t mean it needs to be done for others. Reywas92^Talk 09:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, currently, this article is 145k bytes long, essentially all of it sourced to reliable sources. If merged back to the main Lisa Murkowski article, that article would simply be too long. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gentle reminder that readable prose length, not total article size, applies for the splitting rule of thumb. While the original article was yes a reasonably long 85k, splitting it to be a short 8k main article and a long 77k subarticle is a poor solution if that’s the only consideration. Reywas92^Talk 10:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, (I actually didn’t know how to view prose byte sizes before now, so apologies for that), But I still do feel that if 77k bytes is devoted to a long list of political positions, and only 8k is devoted to everything else, that’s a really unbalanced article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ’’’Comment’’’ My action has been cited for precedent so I thought I’d weigh in real quick. When I split Mitch McConnell, I purposely tried to only include sections where McConnell specifically took a position. It seems like there’s a lot in Murkowski’s current “positions” article that could remain in the main article under “Tenure”, such as Supreme Court Nominations. The line is fuzzy sometimes, but I think there’s a difference between taking a position on a long term issue such as gun control, and opposing/supporting individuals. If more of that material is kept in the main body of the article, it may help resolve this conflict. -Trevdna (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and get under control. There is no reason to split the biographical article at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Other Senators have similar articles. I don't see how this is any different. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well, it isn't promotion. And it seems very long to me as a reader, though I suppose some info could be cut. Dleit Ḵaa (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets notability and does not appear promotional.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.