Deletion of Political positions of Jill Stein

Comment: per , and possibly containing OR based on primary sources, such "JS on Twitter" etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: In principle, there can be both a bio page and a political views page for a particular political figure. However, to make it an editorially desirable separation, there should be a good reason for the political views page to explore content that does not fit at the bio page, and also, both pages must be equally balanced and neutral in POV. Here, however, this really is a  fork, intended to bypass content disputes at the bio page. The content is pretty much just copy-pasted, and it seems unlikely that there will be sufficient reason in the next year or so for this page to go into additional content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: as per  and the well-articulated concerns expressed by User:Neutrality.  '''Note''' also that this article was created during discussions about the "positions" sections on Jill Stein in which article creator had just proposed creating this page and  a fellow editor has said https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jill_Stein&diff=736891442&oldid=736890747 not a good idea.  I am not suggestion that a single editor's opinion must rule a second editor, only that That discussion should have been continued before creating this page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per nom ''et al.''. Stein is ''not'' a "main" presidential candidate; she is polling, at most, a single point. Almost all of the material in the article is "mirrored" from her own website, a violation of both  and , or a |run of the mill rehash of the Green Party platform. I would be less annoyed if criticism of her more controversial positions were analyzed in detail, such as her anti-vaccination stance, but right now, it's little more than crufty agitprop. I really don't see that it could be improved, but please, go ahead and prove me wrong. For what it's worth, I support the other woman
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO||WP:RS||WP:MILL)

Comment: per  as others have mentioned. While there is potential to have standalone political views articles of BLPs in the case of candidates, there isn't really justification for separation from the BLP in this case. The more appropriate case is to keep developing content on the parent page and create the daughter article if there is significant enough content to be standalone to avoid overtaking the BLP article per . I don't really see that happening since political views are her main claim to fame
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:SPINOFF)