Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Karen Bass

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. Sandstein 18:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Karen Bass

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary content fork from Karen Bass. Normally we only spin off "Political positions of [Person]" as a separate topic from the existing biographical article for much higher-level figures, such as highly influential senators, state governors or presidents -- Category:Political positions of members of the United States House of Representatives has articles like this for just six other people besides Karen Bass (discounting a couple of additional cases where the title just exists as a redirect to the biographical article), and of those six, every last manjack or womanjack one of them has been either a presidential candidate or a Speaker of the House, with not a single one of these existing for anybody else who has only been a regular representative. And furthermore, Bass's biographical article already contains information about her political positions as it is, so a separate article about stuff that's already in her BLP anyway isn't critically important for us to have -- even "merging" this back to the BLP wouldn't make it much longer than it already is, since most of the information is already there. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete precisely per nom. Unnecessary to have a separate article at all. BD2412 T 16:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary fork as a merge is impracticable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nom summed this up well. // Timothy :: talk 12:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Less Unless (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD-R and WP:CHEAP Lightburst (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK. Nobody is going to type in this long title looking specifically for her positions outside of her main article. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Positions of note should be highlighted in the subject's main article Spudlace (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2020 (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.