Talk:Mike Dunleavy (politician)

I propose to merge Gubernatorial recall effort against Mike Dunleavy into Mike Dunleavy. I think that the content in the Gubernatorial recall effort against Mike Dunleavy article can easily be explained in the context of Mike Dunleavy, and the Mike Dunleavy article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Gubernatorial recall effort against Mike Dunleavy will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. SecretName101 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merger will be appropriate if the recall effort fails, but considering they have over a year still to collect the required signatures there is still a high chance Gubernatorial recall effort against Mike Dunleavy will become an article primarily about the recall election (see 2021 California gubernatorial recall election for an example) itself and not focused on Mike Dunleavy. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is premature for an independent article to exist. When it results in an election (or appears all but certain to, like the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election at the moment), then it would be more appropriate for it to be a stand-alone article, in my opinion. If the recall effort were more complex, or there was more information on Wikipedia about it than would be appropriate to fit in the Mike Dunleavy article, then it could be justified as a stand-alone article regardless of whether it results in an election, but it does not seem that it warrants that length of coverage at the moment. SecretName101 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this article should be kept for now. If the recall petition ultimately doesn't go anywhere, then it can definitely be deleted and the relevant content merged to the relevant articles. Love of Corey (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think there is enough coverage of this effort to merit an article at this time; if it fails(though even Dunleavy seems to think it will get there) we can deal with this then. Note that there was a Supreme Court decision on this matter. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think now that since the article has been expanded and covers more content, including polling data, it probably is now broad enough to be a standalone article SecretName101 (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect, until/if a recall election is scheduled. GoodDay (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the most recent comment by SecretName101. There is (now) more than enough content in this article to suggest that th subject passes WP:GNG. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, since the recall effort failed, it's only appropriate to make it a section of Mike Dunleavy's article Ravens (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, the recall campaign gave up; this should just by included in the Dunleavy article. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger. Dunleavy is on the ballot for reelection in November 2022. Activist (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]