Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of legislation sponsored by John Kerry

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 merge to John Kerry. czar 18:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of legislation sponsored by John Kerry

[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)

This is a WP:CONTENTFORK. One sentence is sourced with one RS: FactCheck.Org. There are no other RS. Whatever content is deemed noteworthy can simply be merged with the John Kerry main article. To be honest, I don't think there's any salvageable content here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented in your similar AFD, CONTENTFORK doesn't provide a deletion rationale here. There's also no question that what bills Kerry sponsored while in Congress can be sourced, with citations to the bills themselves. I'm really inclined to view this kind of list to politicians what bibliographies are to writers, though I'm open to a compelling reason why we shouldn't. postdlf (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, anything notable can be merged to John Kerry, per nom. Reywas92^Talk 21:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The lack of verifiability here is easily addressed, but the real question is whether treating this in the detail it deserves would overwhelm the parent article and necessitate a spinoff. At the moment, I'm not seeing compelling evidence that that is the case, so a merger would be appropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2019 (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.