Category talk:Jack Abramoff scandals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categories for discussion This category was nominated for deletion, renaming, or merging with another category on 2006 June 27. The result of the discussion was keep.
Notice Category page history note: The text from this category page was cut and pasted to Jack Abramoff scandals and the (article) history after 26 May 2007 is there. The history here needs to be maintained for attribution purposes. If it becomes possible to move histories from category pages, please have the histories merged. Thanks, mattbr 15:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge or make into an article

This is a strange artifact -- a category with a huge article content. The article content of this category should either me merged into Jack Abramoff or split into a new article (such as Jack Abramoff scandals). The status quo, a huge article in the Category space, is inconsistent, hard to find, and because of that, of rather poor consistency and quality. Cleduc 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, i think the text of this category "article" was once a list (List of Jack Abramoff scandals) and was also once another article (Jack Abramoff controversies). Shouldn't be merged to Jack Abramoff, that is a bio article and it's hard enough to keep it from ballooning out of size with every detail on the various investigations. I haven't really looked at the content here to see if it is redundant. Could be improved, doesn't even necessarily include a short description of all controversies. KWH 05:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should not be merged into the Jack Abramoff article. It should have its own article. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:::As per tomf688, I am moving this article. It was difficult to find, and it is time for this to become an article, even if it needs some cleanup.-Hairchrm 04:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As I was looking for a name for this article, I ran across other pages such as this,[1],this [2], and this [3]. So I think this article should now be deleted. Thank you.-Hairchrm 04:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)