Talk:Political positions of Nancy Pelosi

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Nancy Pelosi.

Don't delete this article

This article was created because the section of the Nancy Pelosi article that covered her political positions was getting too long, and it's the exact same content. All of the citations are intact, so where is this "original research by synthesis" that is claimed as the reason for deletion? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reconsideration, and after looking at the original article, I agree with you and believe that I've made a mistake. Therefore, I'm removing my own PROD tag. I'm sorry if you've been inconvenienced. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic! Thanks! By the way, it wasn't me who started this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your guns. The article started out "crappy" and was just enhanced a few hours ago. Still, there is lots of work to do here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article is a content-fork of the biography article (and one with some POV issues). The fact is that the Pelosi biography is not yet in danger of becoming too long, and the political positions section still exists there. We cannot simultaneously go branch off in another direction in this article. That is the very definition of content fork. I'm going to nominate it for deletion accordingly. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the highest ranking member of the House and the Democratic congressional leader, she deserves her own article a la Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Ted Kennedy

I think separating the Kennedy one is a bad mistake; it contained a lot of important biographical information and left the main article with big content holes. The other three were for people running for president last year, when they are forced to take positions on every issue under the sun. Many of these positions are not biographically important, and so were put in a separate article to reduce the size of the main article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I see that no one objected to the Kennedy split-off in Talk:Ted_Kennedy#split_political_positions. The problem is, it left absolutely nothing about Kennedy's Senate accomplishments in the main article, when that's his main legacy. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about long legislative careers is difficult. Perhaps Joe Biden#United States Senator is a good model to follow: focus in depth on the areas of particular importance and accomplishments in the main BLP, and don't try to cover every vote or position on every issue. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has the wrong tag - shouldn't it have a merge tag instead of a delete tag? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should consider changing the fact that Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the 112th congress. Correction should be John Boehner is the Speaker for the 112th Congress not Nancy Pelosi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenleath (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]