Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration

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 keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration

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

This list is a split from Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration. The splitter has not started a discussion on the split, as required by WP:SPLIT. The split is certainly not justified on size (the original article is under 6K, this is under 2.5K, and size splitting doesn't take place until 40K). The list does not overburden the original article (especially if formatted correctly, without a list of non-existant pictures). To discussants and the closer, please note that even though this is an AfD, the burden is actually reversed--Ahnoneemoos needs to justify the existence of this as a standalone article, with a no consensus result requiring a return to the original state (no split). Really, an AfD should never have been required, had Ahnoneemoos attempted to establish consensus in the first place. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Keep as a standalone article. I beleive that it's better if we have a clean and concise list on the main article with a separated and detailed list on this List. The Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration is similar to a foreign affairs ministry and it's important to detail its Directors, but not on its main article. The main article already has a clean and concise list of its former Directors while this article has a detailed view. This is acceptable on Wikipedia and is not a violation of any rules.

In addition, WP:BEBOLD, WP:IAR, and WP:NOTABUREAUCRACY doesn't require a discussion to take place to split the article. I was WP:BOLD, split the article on its own, and tagged it with the proper cleanup templates while leaving concise and susbstantial information on the main article. I will take responsibility and give my compromise to edit and clean the List as time goes by. Just because it doesn't have pictures today it doesn't mean that it won't have them tomorrow. I'm not an employee of Wikipedia and can't be on it 24/7 but it's obvious if you see the list of articles that I have created and edited that I will eventually contribute to it to bring it up to standard. I also understand that I don't WP:OWN and that this is not my article, but this is simply a normal thing to do on articles that have long tables that deviate from the main subject.

Furthermore, this is just a WP:WITCHHUNT on User:Qwyrxian as you can see on my talk page. This is not about what's better for Wikipedia, it's all about WP:WINNING and WP:DISRUPTPOINT. I have clearly offered a solution that can satisfy both point of views but User:Qwyrxian still wants to delete it. He is being intransigent.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold is fine. When you are reverted after being bold, you must engage in a discussion on the matter. WP:BRD is probably the most widely accepted essay on the site, and is generally held to be equivalent to a guideline at least. Had you simply opened up the discussion required by WP:SPLIT, I never would have taken the steps I did, and would have trusted whatever consensus resulted. You chose to forge your own path, thus I had to use a more drastic means to remedy to your refusal to start a discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the problem, you did not revert my edit: you simply speedy deleted it unilaterally even after I contested its deletion. You just can't speedy delete something as an Administrator when it's contested. Remember, as an editor WP:IAR and WP:BEBOLD cover your ass, but as an Administrator things are different because you actually have the power to delete something. I advise you to re-read what you just wrote and WP:CALM. If you notice you are doing this simply becuase of WP:BUREAUCRACY. Your goal is not doing what is best for Wikipedia, your goal right now is: "DUE PROCESS WAS NOT FOLLOWED OHMAHGAWD MUST DELETE". Wikipedia is flexible and WP:IAR stands above all. This is not a malicious edit, it's actually quite benefitial, but you are so caught up in WP:DISRUPTPOINT and WP:BUREAUCRACY that you want to vanish all evil that doesn't follow what you believe to be due process. You need to remember that WP:NOTPAPER and splitting articles is OK as long as you leave substantial information on the main article. That's exactly what I did. I have provided you with a fantastic solution that satisifies both your concerns and mine, but you are still focused on your crusade for due process, WP:NOTABUREAUCRACY bro. Seriously man, WP:CALM, WP:LETITGO, and have a blunt and you will realize how petty this is. We could be spending all this time and effort on creating new articles. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States subject to the plenary powers of Congres. About 25% of Puerto Rico's budget comes from subsidies from the federal government of the United States ($1 out of every $4 dollars!!). Because of this, the government of Puerto Rico created the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration and established its Director to lead it. This office is critical for Puerto Rico as it serves and the primary liaison between Puerto Rico and the United States. Naturally, the Director of this office is extremely important to Puerto Rico and its people.

Task: we need to detail the Directors information and include: Ordinality, Picture, Name, Date they took office, Date they left office, Political party, and Affiliation.

Problem: if we detail all that on the main article then visually the article becomes more about its Director than about the office since the table would be extremely long.

Solution: keep concise and clean details of the Directors on the main article and split the details into its own article.

This is what this edit did. Unfortunately, as you can see, User:Qwyrxian deleted it even when the speedy delete was contested.

Hope this helps.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a reasonable list. Work in progress. Nomination without merit. WP:SPLIT does not "require" anything. It is a guideline, and it merely "recommends". - Altenmann >t 12:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement to stage a discussion prior to splitting a section from an article. I also disagree that there's any kind of burdenshifting applicable here; if anything, AFDs should be harder when you are trying to delete split content because the normal solution, if one is needed, is simply to merge back and redirect. A no consensus result would just throw this back to normal discussion and editing to hash out; it would not in any way prevent editors from keeping this split off. Here a split based on size issues is reasonable given the length of the formatted table, and the same as has been done for other articles on government offices. So keep. postdlf (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a list of people who have held a significant governmental role. I expect that the remaining entries will also be found to be notable. Both this and the page it was split from having sourcing issues, but googling suggests that sources exist. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2012 (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.