Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Steele credit report incident

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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Steele credit report incident

A minor "incident" in a minor campaign. It is more than adequately covered in a single paragraph in Michael Steele, it doesn't need its own slightly-larger-than-one-paragraph article. I attempted to merge, but the article's author objected, claming it is an "ongoing investigation and current event". But this is pretty much history now and there is nothing left to happen; the relevant parties have been fired, quit, or pled guilty. Delete because there's nothing here that isn't or can't be covered in Michael Steele. Gamaliel 18:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep the plea agreement and the ongoing nature as well as the details warrant a separate article. There is no "paper" lost by having a separate article. Err on the side of caution and keep as separate article until completely resolved.--Tbeatty 19:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • note: Creator of article.
  • Can you please specify which of the grounds in Wikipedia:Speedy keep this meets? Stifle (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per Tbeatty, though I think it'd be better off merged into the main article.--み使い Mitsukai 19:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is virtually a recreation, under a new name, of an article which was just deleted yesterday, Lauren B. Weiner. This brief material does deserves to be covered, but in the Michael Steele article (where it already is). Relatively short articles, such as Steele's, should cover cover important events in that person's life. A brief sub-article, like this, is useful only if the topic warrants enough discussion that it would be unwieldy in the main article. This sub-article is just a couple paragraphs, and there is no real prospect of expansion. It's not a matter of wasting "paper", but of having a coherent organizational structure for articles; it is counterproductive to write a physically distinct article for every minor incident for every minor figure. It belongs in the main article. Derex 19:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I merged the details, sans Weiner, into this article as was stated in the delete log. This sub-article touches on two things that makes a better separate article 1) DSCC practices and 2) Michael Steele. This should be mentioned on both pages and it is just easier if it is kept as a separate article. It is much more difficult to keep up with details across two articles. This is the whole concept of "main article" referencing. --Tbeatty 19:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, you actually moved all of the material from the deleted Weiner article there. I deleted a bunch of that, like her alma mater. What's left is about a paragraph. If we made every paragraph into its own article, wikipedia would be pretty hard to read. Derex 19:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: there is a similar article on Katie Barge, another player in this incident. If Lauren B. Weiner's article was removed per AfD, Barge's article should be considered, too. - Rynne 17:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's in the Michael Steele article, and that is totally sufficient. Ziggurat 20:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• There is no "paper" lost by having a separate article. Using this logic, let's remove every section from every article and make them all their own articles. Delete. Aplomado - UTC 22:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This was a serious breach against a notable person. Merecat 04:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aplomado. It's notable, but sufficiently covered in Steele's article. GRuban 13:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pertinant information is already included in Michael Steele. - Rynne 17:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Mention in Michael Steele if desired. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge'. Kappa 10:00, 15 April 2006 (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.