Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-presidency of Bill Clinton

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 Snow Keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-presidency of Bill Clinton[edit]

(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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment Isn't that the point of WP:SUBARTICLE? Praemonitus (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. - Mr X 03:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 p b p 05:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: also per MrX. And this does smack of some tendentious disruption aimed at the article creator. He iro 06:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep--Scaldjosh (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck out. This is a sockpuppet of Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs)}. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, legitimate WP:SPINOUT from the parent article Bill Clinton. Cavarrone (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Agree with merge If the article has too much content in one section, then it can be expanded into an entirely differently article. For now it seems like a merge. Touch Of Light (Talk / Contributions) 09:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was created, Bill Clinton was too long (over 100KB). It is again too long. The problem is that people haven't bothered to add new events to the post-presidency article, they have added them to the main article instead. If you converted some of those to summary style and put the main content in the post-presidency article, you'd have plenty of content. What I'm seeing here is an argument for the article being fixed, not upmerged p b p 14:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if this wasn't a POINT-y nomination it would still be a keep. Not only is the reader better served by having a separate article for the topic, but there's actually plenty of substantial coverage from reliable sources focusing specifically on his post-presidential life and career.--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Seems like this is a perfectly acceptable spinoff article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – legitimate Spin-off article that will continue to grow given the subject. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid and useful article. Deletion will not help our readers. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 15:48, 27 March 2013 (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.