Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legacy of Harvey Milk

:{{la|Legacy of Harvey Milk}} ([{{fullurl:Legacy of Harvey Milk|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legacy of Harvey Milk}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

{{User|Levineps}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvey_Milk&diff=271837854&oldid=271332045 copied] the Legacy section from the Harvey Milk article and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legacy_of_Harvey_Milk&diff=prev&oldid=271837918 pasted it] as a new article. I replaced the deleted content from Harvey Milk. Legacy of Harvey Milk is redundant, and completely verbatim to what I wrote, and what belongs in Milk's article. --Moni3 (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No reason to rip out the guts of an FA and skewer them somewhere else. ←Spidern→ 15:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• ::The article is too long, something needs to be taken out--Levineps (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• ::: The article is not too long: it is 9,800 words, well within WP:SIZE and has been vetted at WP:FAC as well as on the main page.

• Delete, no reason for this unnecessary split, which damaged an FA and was done with no attempt at discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Not knowing the history of the Harvey Milk article, I'd assumed the split resulted from some discussion about that article's length. I could just about see an argument for a split on length grounds, but it appears there had been no such consensus (and even if there had, some material should've been left at Harvey Milk, as I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALevineps&diff=271839980&oldid=271520296 said] on this article's creator's talk page). If there's consensus conversely that the material remain fully at Harvey Milk then certainly there's no reason to retain this split. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong wait. The attempt at refactoring was WP:BOLD, and indeed probably should have had some discussion/consensus before it happened. However, the sentiment that Harvey Milk desperately needs to move to a more summary style, per WP:SIZE is absolutely correct. Per Gonzonoir, I have started a thread for discussion of such refactoring on Talk:Harvey Milk. Prematurely deleting this (possible) child article just seems counter-productive; let's let editors of the parent figure out the best refactoring approach, and see whether this child is the right approach.
• Delete. OK, the refactoring has now been discussed at the Milk talk page, and there's clearly no consensus for refactoring, and hence no need for this child article. LotLE×talk 19:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

:* I'm curious about where the notion that this article skirts WP:SIZE originates. FAs routinely run up to 10,000 words readable prose, within the WP:SIZE guideline, and quite often run over. See User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. This article passed FAC and main page day with no complaints about size; why the push to gut the article? This sort of activity is a real disencentive to FA contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural close as speedy delete or as redirect, without prejudice to future creation if consensus is reached on the Harvey Milk talk page. This is not a matter for AfD. The issue is whether or not to create a child article out of an article that is growing too long to be manageable. The decision on whether or not to split the article, and the act of doing it properly, will likely take longer than an AfD and would moot any result we reach here. To avoid forking the discussion let's all go back to the article talk page and comment on what we think there. I hope that works procedurally. Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Levineps' actions should not be rewarded by keeping this around. He/she does this a lot; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_McCarthy&diff=267103427&oldid=267103057 this gutting] of GA article Joe McCarthy and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Russell&diff=271214858&oldid=271063837 this unnecessary removal] from FA article Bill Russell as two examples, both done with no prior discussion, no edit summary, nothing. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete FA articles are WPs best work and radical changes like this one should be extensively discussed to avoid allowing the article to lose quality. In this case the split wasn't done properly because per WP:SUMMARY the removed text should've been replaced with an adequate summary in addition to the link. No prejudice against recreation after adequate discussion on the original article talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, if there is no usable sourced content in this article that doesn't exist in the history of Harvey Milk. If there is such content then merge it into Harvey Milk and redirect. Any further discussion of how to organise the content can then take place at Talk:Harvey Milk. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2009 (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.