Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of Harry Reid (3rd 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Harry Reid

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is essentially a WP:POVFORK involving a living person. Our WP:BLP policy expressly puts restrictions Criticism sections and discourages giving them "disproportionate space" this article does just that and violates the spirit of BLP. Material criticizing Harry Reid positions need to be included in Political positions of Harry Reid not WP:COATRACKed into an article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Harry Reid already has a lengthy criticism section, there's no need to duplicate the same material in a standalone article. 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too much valid info here to simply delete. As mentioned in the previous AfD, the article conforms with WP:SS: "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place." According to this tool, the character count of Harry_Reid#Criticism is 4,020, while the character count for Criticisms of Harry Reid is 15,355—more than three times as large. (In fact, the entire Harry Reid article has only 11,992 characters.) If a merge is desired with Political positions of Harry Reid, then a merge request should instead be initiated. —Eustress ^talk 19:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Criticisms of Harry Reid is larger than Harry Reid, doesn't that suggest an WP:UNDUE WEIGHT problem? 28bytes (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A "Criticism of..." article should never exist in this encyclopedia. They just become dumb laundry lists of attacks from political detractors. Any notable criticisms appear to already exist in both the main Reid article and the "political positions" article; a redirect or merge is unnecessary. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently one-sided and so contrary to core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP:POVFORK usually entails disagreement over content. I don't see objections to specific content at the article, nor at Harry Reid. I might remind everyone "do not refer to forks as 'POV' except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." Reid is certainly controversial enough for an article such as this, and there is too much sourced material to just delete it all. However, I would make a few changes... I suggest that the article be renamed and content added to balance the article. Remember: "It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance." Lionel (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a huge supporter of the WP:SPINOUT method of article development, but I have long considered these "Criticisms of <foo>" articles are the wrong way to go about it. Frequently they suffer from undue weight. On topics where there really are a lot of reliable sources saying things on both sides of the argument (like polarizing politicians), it's still a balance problem. Praise of Harry Reid? That wouldn't make it a week before being deleted as a hagiographical POV fork. And, thus, so should this, as its opposite. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. The article runs afoul of WP:BLP, WP:COATRACK, & WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.--JayJasper (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP recommends against criticism sections in articles and a complete article that is apparently even bigger that his life story is completely undue. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2011 (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.