Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Michael Bloomberg

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 merge and redirect to Michael Bloomberg#Political positions. — TKD::Talk 08:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political positions of Michael Bloomberg

Political positions of Michael Bloomberg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This page appears to be WP:OR that relies almost exclusively upon one source ontheissues.org. There is already a page of Muchael Bloomberg, thus I question the need for an article on his politics where the most reliable source is the RollingStone! Personally I agree with Hameo below and think this should be merged with the main article.Balloonman 04:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This is a waste of everybody's time, that is not the only source used. What is your problem. The article talks about a potential presidential candidate's stances on issues. This is nowhere else on wikipedia and is very helpful--Southern Texas 04:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you should have no problem with having others review it to see if they believe that this article is OR or not... and overly reliant upon one source or if they believe that one source is objective enough. Calling somebody a troll and a vandal for nominating your article is clearly not assuming good faith. This article needs to be merged and this page deleted.Balloonman 04:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Haemo convinced me. I don't think any admin intervention is necessary. I will do the merge unless anyone objects.--Southern Texas 03:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Michael Bloomberg#Possible 2008 presidential campaign. Dbromage 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me ask you why the articles for the other candidates don't have to do this?
    • Fred Thompson is not a candidate yet, Joe Lieberman is not a candidate, Pat Buchanan is not a candidate but they all have pages like this. This troll nomination needs to be thrown out.--Southern Texas 04:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • This line of reasoning is known as WP:CRAP. It is often a symptom that the other articles need to be deleted, not that the current article needs to be preserved.Balloonman 08:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Don't ever call my contributions that word ever again you anti-semitic troll--Southern Texas 14:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Southern Texas, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Dbromage [Talk] 01:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Southern, also look up WP:CRAP it is not a reference to your contributions or what you said, it is one of the arguments to avoid. Basically it says, not to use the argument that just because other CRAP exists that this article should be allowed.Balloonman 03:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
            • • Sorry about the personal attack. I have read all these rules and I don't think the last one pertains to this article per Savidan.--Southern Texas 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back with Michael Bloomberg. He's not a Presidential Candidate yet; wait until he is. Heck, userfy this until then. We don't need what is basically a nicely-formatted version of "ontheissues" for every possible candidate. --Haemo 04:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thats it, I retire I'm putting up with this garbage--Southern Texas 05:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure you need to do that; it's not a big deal or anything -- just userfy the page until he announces. --Haemo 05:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wasn't going to mention WP:CRYSTAL but Haemo makes a valid point. Dbromage 05:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The article is not about the campaign of a candidate but his views on issues. This has its own category. The page should not be merged because it would clutter up the Michael Bloomberg page. The information is sourced and encyclopedic it should not be deleted or merged but have its own article.--Southern Texas 19:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Haemo. Maxamegalon2000 05:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Haemo. --PEAR (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. The article has multiple secondary sources, many footnotes and is extensive. It might make more sense just to keep it. However, if a skillful merge could be performed, I would also support such an action. --Evil1987 16:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Haemo.--JayJasper 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. as per uses above. James Luftan ^contribs 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and oppose merge - These articles are not just for presidential candidates. Savidan 18:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and ressurect if he decides to run. I was on the fence for a while. I was considering keep since he is a notable politician, but I'm now sure. James Luftan ^contribs 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the subject's main article. I see no compelling reason for this to be in a separate article. --ElKevbo 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. Harlowraman 19:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This should be closed the article has already been merged.--Southern Texas 19:08, 13 August 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.