Talk:Reconstruction and The Changing South

Untitled
I was wondering how this article is any different than the already extensive articles on Reconstruction and History of the Southern United States. This title also seems more like a documentary title than that of an article on a specific encyclopedia topic. Joshdboz 22:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * hmmm. Just noticed it. I think mine is alot better. Will be longer to, mine is more likely to be featured then the other one. By the way my title is better then "Reconstruction" it is alot more desprictive. --Zonerocks 04:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC) I copied this statement from my talk page. Joshdboz 10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand this situation. The articles Reconstruction and History of the Southern United States cover all this information and more. This title is not better because it is not the name of anything, it's more like a book title. And why would this be more likely to be featured when the other is so complete with notes, references, etc? It's really not worth fighting over this, but I will propose this for deletion unless there is a real reason why this should be kept. Joshdboz 10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Look im still working on this. It isn't finished. But i am dedicated to this article. Ive been working on it for a very long time planning it. It should be finished by tuesday. Don't put this up for deletion. I am proud of my work. Just keep it. --Zonerocks 18:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC) I copied this statement from my talk page. Joshdboz 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the effort you've put into or will put into this article, but sooner or later something is going to be done to it because it is simply a duplicate of Reconstruction. But since it lacks any citations and reads more like a story than an article I don't think a merger would work. By sending it to AfD this issue will luckily be resolved. Joshdboz 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)