Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Christopher Dodd

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. Maxim_(talk) 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political positions of Christopher Dodd

I am nominating this article for deletion since it is a copy of the website ontheissues.org.--Southern Texas 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator.--Southern Texas 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and make sure the ontheissues.org link appears in the main Chris Dodd article. That external link is a far better source of information than this article nominated for deletion; no need for partial duplication of content on Wikipedia. =Axlq 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant Mbisanz 02:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the content of this page is equally attributed to senate.gov as to ontheissues.org. I have checked the page history and not found any obvious copyright violations with this. We replicate the content that can be found on other websites all the time, so unless a specific allegation of copyright violation is raised, or real problems found with this article, I cant see any reason why this candidate shouldnt have a views sub page. John Vandenberg 09:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary. Eusebeus 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to his main article, don't need to separate the point of vues of candidates or other politicians from the main page.--JForget 01:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per JForget. Bearian 01:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All the other candidates in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election have "issues" pages. I say keep -- both for uniformity and to keep the info on the candidates unbiased (as far as who can have an "issues" page, and who can't). I actually think it should be expanded -- Ljpernic 06:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You are wrong, Tom Tancredo does not have a positions page and neither does Sam Brownback, your argument has no merit.--Southern Texas 03:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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.