Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Miller's role as mayor

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. The article does not need to be merged back into the original, because all content already exists in the history of David Miller (Canadian politician). Thus, the next thing to do is to take the material from this revision, edit it down to a reasonable length, and add it back in to the main article. Chick Bowen 04:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Miller's role as mayor[edit]

Delete op-ed POV fork from main article Mayalld (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This fork had been created as a result of the issue with the length of the main article. I know that there may be potential POV issues, but it can be fixed. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original article was over long, and POV. The solution isn't to take all the crud and dump it into another article. The answer is to fix the crud. Mayalld (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To fix the crud, we need more contributors, especially those who contributed to the main article. This deletion policy is like throwing the baby out of the bathwater; this article has some potential; despite being POV, it has 215 citations; one solution is to eliminate the POV to reduce the article's length to a more manageable size. This article was the indirect result of recentism, since the articles pertaining to former Toronto mayors are approximately the same length as the revamped David Miller article. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content back into David Miller (Canadian politician), and edit the material as required. There was no need for this fork to be created in the first place. CJCurrie (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fork was created, since originally, David Miller's article is four to five times as long as the average article pertaining to Toronto mayors or of most politicians. For example, the article on Mel Lastman is one-sixth the size of the newly-created sub-article. The size alone is the main justification for the content forking (systems with little processing power would have problems loading the original article or even this fork). The original size of the David Miller article is approximately 117 kilobytes. Since the forking, the main David Miller article has shrunk to a more manageable 27 kilobytes. The size of the forked article is still too large (92.4 kilobytes). The only way to survive deletion is to remove POV and reduce the size significantly. Even if it ended up being merged, then the information in the fork has to be trimmed considerably as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still don't believe the fork needed to be created at all. As I said on the Miller talk page, the proper course of action should have been to carefully edit the content of the original article (ie. streamline content in a sensible way, without tearing large chunks out of the piece). CJCurrie (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That I cannot do alone. I believe that the main contributors to the article should help me do so. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that would be me. I suppose I've put this off for too long ... CJCurrie (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absurd concept for an article. If the size is the justification, then perhaps the detail is excessive.DGG (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the detail is excessive, but the article stays. There are many articles with concepts more absurd than this. See unusual articles. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 05:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—why should there be something wrong with a subarticle devoted to what a politician does while holding a major political office? I think that's quite a good idea for an article. The article is not too detailed; Wikipedia aims for comprehensive coverage. Eliminating notable content so that all the content can be stuffed onto one page indicates some very misplaced priorities. Everyking (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, since articles on the much more notable politicians have their own (and detailed) articles regarding their policies. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rather unstructured mess. Useful content can fit nicely in 3-4 paragraphs in his biography; this is far too detailed. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:56, 5 August 2008 (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.