Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Bachmann, EdWatch, and MFI

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 September 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Articles need to be broad in their coverage (not narrow) such as by staying focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details. Consensus is that these four additional content fork articles give undue weight to various issues and that one article broad in its coverage on Michele Bachmann should be sufficient to cover these same issues for someone of her political position. Jreferee T/C 10:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Bachmann, EdWatch, and MFI

Also nominated:

Michele Bachmann's 1999 school board campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michele Bachmann and the 2000 election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michele Bachmann and the 2002 election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A group of four articles about the early career of US Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Although well-referenced, this material is generally covered in much less detail within the primary biographical article unless the topic is, for example, Shakespeare. --Dhartung | Talk 07:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The parent article seems overly long (problem exacerbated by large numbers of short sections, though), so the split might make sense; if there are references that go into such a level of detail about a person's life or career that it's possible to write so much, then I don't see any reason we shouldn't write so much. On the other hand, I'm not entirely comfortable with the precedent of having an article on every politician's campaign for every election. cab 11:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong keep: Important info. and insights into contemporary politics, the actions of a Congresswoman, and, in general, the interweaving and interlinking of different political factions, in this case right-wing Minnesotans. To delete b/c it is too long is ABSURD. Pugnacious 14:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The only reason this information was split from the main article is because of length concerns on that article. The information is referenced and notable. The person is unquestionably notable. The real question here is if wikipedia should be a source for any notable information on a subject or limit its articles solely due to size concerns. If an article gets over a certain KB size, the current policy is to split it; the originator of this nomination is proposing that instead we should follow a policy of erasing information regardless of how well its sourced. In my opinion this school of thought reduces wikipedia to a bunch of articles without any depth, suitable for printing on the back of a cereal box but unsuitable for any serious scholarship.--Wowaconia 16:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize for a vague deletion rationale. Let me try again. First, it may be possible to keep Michele Bachmann and the 2000 election and Michele Bachmann and the 2002 election if they are renamed and rewritten as Minnesota State Senate District 56 election, 2000 and Minnesota State Senate District 56 election, 2002, but they would have to be substantially rewritten to present a neutral point of view giving coverage to both major-party candidates and any broader view of the district elections. I am uncertain how many state senate elections actually have articles; I found Georgia's 24th state senate district special election, 2007, as one example, but several states have collective articles covering all state-level elections, such as Washington State Senate elections, 2006. I am concerned about giving WP:NPOV#Undue weight to one particular candidate (whether positive or negative) and one particular election, that doesn't on the face of it seem to have been that important at the national level or even the state level. I am very concerned about the undue weight given to the allegations in the topmost article listed, Michele Bachmann, EdWatch, and MFI, since it simply reads like an attack page, again giving undue weight to certain allegations against someone. It seems inappropriate for Wikipedia to become a directory of political allies and positions, particularly when there is no demonstrated notability of this connection other than creating a laundry list. Finally, I see no rationale for keeping an article on a school board election, given that school board membership is well below the bar set by WP:BIO. Again, it seems to give undue weight to the importance of this phase of this politician's career. Most Congresspeople have prior careers that have been at least slightly controversial in local terms, but generally doing this sort of detailed examination is beyond the encyclopedic purposes of Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 00:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV forks and attempts to get undue attention. She's notable; conceivably, specific state senate elections might be notable; However, the articles nominated here are attempts to turn WP into a site for campaign literature. Just as wrong as commercial advertising. I am not the least certain of the overall neutrality of any of the articles including the main one--I think they give much more weight to the criticism of her activities and positions than the defense of them. And Dhartung is absolutely right about the tendency of the Edwatch page. DGG (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the articles are too long. But, that does not mean they need to be deleted, just shortened. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 20:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, people, Bachmann is ranked 431st out of 435 Congresscritters in the "power ranking" index.[1] She is not notable enough for FIVE ARTICLES. Harry Reid doesn't have five articles. Nancy Pelosi doesn't have five articles. Not even John Boehner has five articles. Rick Santorum has four (santorum (sexual neologism), Santorum Amendment, Santorum controversy) and he was approximately the most controversial Senator in recent history, as well as being a top GOP leader in the Senate. I just don't get it, I guess. Maybe I'll write up my own Congressman's high school years; I'm sure it would be scintillating reading. --Dhartung | Talk 09:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG; we're an encyclopedia giving overview not minutiae of each elected official's career. Imagine if we had similar articles for each an every notable elected official. Argh. Carlossuarez46 05:02, 20 September 2007 (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.