Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Rudy Giuliani
The full state of this article from five days ago can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversies_of_Rudy_Giuliani&oldid=169475998: a mass of entries, some internal duplicates, some external duplicates, some incoherent, some uncited, some not "controversies" in any sense, and a fair amount of legitimate material underneath it all.  Per Talk:Controversies_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Time_To_Hillarize_this_article_and_dismantle_it, I documented item by item how I pruned out the illegitimate or inappropriate material.  That left roughly the article that Dogru144 is trying to restore now.  I then dismantled, disbursed, and integrated the legitimate contents into the appropriate mainline text sections of the Giuliani main article, daughter articles, and other Giuliani related articles.  This is documented, item by item, in Talk:Controversies_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Actual_dismantling.  I then redirected this article to the main article, but left this Talk page unredirected, so people could see a record of what had been done.  Talk:Controversies_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Terminating_of_page_is_vandalism then contains further discussions of all this.  My motivation in all this is that I believe that such Controversies sections or articles are counter to , ontent forking, and riticism; that as pointed out above, FA articles on political figures do not have them; and that I have seen numerous complaints and comments on various Talk pages that about half of 2008 presidential candidates' articles have them (including Giuliani until now, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee) and half do not (including Giuliani now, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Paul), and what nefarious WP biases must be at play to produce this difference.  While I think random editing choices rather than biases have been at play, the current inconsistent state of candidates' articles is indeed embarrassing for Wikipedia.  The solution is obvious: dismantle, disburse, and integrate those Controversies pages or sections that still exist.  Contrary to what Dogru144 states, I am not driven in this by any political agenda; some time ago I previously dismantled and disbursed the Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies page — see Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies#Proposal_to_dismantle_this_article where I documented what I did just as I have here — and have very recently been working on the John McCain article with an eye towards doing the same there.  Dogru144 has charged me with "blanking", but I have not, as no legitimate material critical of Giuliani has been removed from Wikipedia; rather, it has been located where it belongs, in the articles that supply the context for the criticism.  People who like Controversies articles tend to be people who, as Dogru144 states, want "a single spot with unpleasant, embarrassing material on person X"; but it is not Wikipedia's purpose or role to supply such a  spot.  All of the legitimate "unpleasant, embarrasing material" on Giuliani is still in Wikipedia, but you now you have to read it within the context of Giuliani's life, actions, and accomplishments, good or bad.  That's what , ontent forking, riticism, and  call for
— User:Wasted, 22:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NPOV||WP:C||WP:C||WP:NPOV||WP:C||WP:C||WP:BLP (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)