Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American propaganda in the Mexican–American War


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  11:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

American propaganda in the Mexican–American War

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * We are not a repository for essays. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 08:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge the bits that are not an essay on US foreign policy to Mexican–American War.TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your ambiguous statement at no point shows where the article violates wikipedia terms of use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleiwp11 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a link for that. This is not a TOU issue, this is an editorial policy issue. If this were a TOU issue, I would nominate for speedy deletion. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTESSAY, and serious WP:NPOV concerns that the subject matter is likely impossible to make a neutral standalone article. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A neutral stand alone article? Seriously? This is a summary of other people's statements from both sides. Please consider that when you claim that it cannot be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleiwp11 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My claim was issued based on the pro/con nature of the article; it's not NPOV, even if it's multi-POV. Regardless of whether you accept that (and I stand by it), it's still an essay, not an encyclopedic article. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia terms of use seem quite obvious that they do not dictate the content of citations must be neutral point of views, but merely that the author/wikiusers viewpoint be neutral. This makes it an encyclopedic article as it clearly is showing a historical event from an encyclopedic standpoint, not original research towards an essay topic and I stand by that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleiwp11 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:NOTESSAY yet? -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 02:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, you may want to read WP:LAWYER as well, at this point. You keep noting terms of use.  This article is against our editorial guidelines.  That's a little different.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - STOP BITING THE NEWCOMER. Carrite (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments - A few things off the top. (1) This nomination is an example of biting newcomers. This is a new editor attempting to contribute a substantive historical piece straight out the gate. Their first Wikipedia experience is going to be a bad one, tagged and dragged to AfD within hours of creation. That is unfortunate. (2) The piece Mexican–American War is a really good piece of work. Merger is really not a viable option, what needs to be determined is whether this topic is encyclopedic and therefore preserved to be worked on in mainspace or whether the piece should be deleted from mainspace and userfied for work outside of mainspace, assuming the new content creator is not so alienated that they give up on Wikipedia all together. (3) Misspelling "propaganda" in the title?!? Really?!?!? I'm going to boldly fix that now. No opinion yet on the article itself, I just wanted to get those things off my chest. Carrite (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as it violates WP:NOTESSAY--Yopie (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I have just spent time tidying the articel up, but I seriously wonder whehter I have not wasted my time. The article on the Mexican–American War already has a section on the views for and against the war; this article might be used to expand them, but I fear that will have the effect of unbalancing that article.  If kept, it should be renamed to something like Contemporary views on the Mexican–American War, as it mistly seems to be about what particular politicians thought about it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge. Although it needs improvement, this is an entirely legitimate subject for an article (though a better title might be something like Contemporary views on the Mexican–American War). I don't really see the 'NOTESSAY' concerns raised by others - that shortcut advises us to avoid essay-like articles which assess both sides of an argument and draw a conclusion, but this one doesn't do that. However, I do take the point that the scope of this article is partly already covered by the 'Opposition to the war' and 'Defense of the war' sections in the Mexican–American War article. The best solution might be to merge parts of this article into that one, rather than deleting it outright. Robofish (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge rather than redirect, per Robofish. Many a decent article started as a crappy essay. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   04:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Firstly, the topic of propaganda is a valid one for Wikipedia; and it is not the same as the topic of views of a war, which often continue after fighting is over. It is correct for the views on both sides to be described (neutrally). The existence of sides is a necessary concomitant of warfare, so sidedness in the subject matter cannot be avoided and NPOV is not automatically breached. The essaylike nature of the newbie's article is not a fatal problem but a matter for editing. A merge to Mexican–American War would be possible, but a discussion of the lengthy propaganda issues would certainly unbalance that article, so a separate article is justified. Adequate sources exist on the web, in books and no doubt in historical archives, so notability cannot be an issue. Finally, it is reasonable that a short summary of the issues be present in Mexican–American War, so an overlap between the two articles is desirable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is an encyclopedic topic as a sub-page of the already fully developed Mexican–American War, in my estimation. I think it safe to assume that this is an early and imperfect piece waiting for more specialist attention. But the TOPIC strikes me as notable and I have no doubt that it's adequately sourceable to the academic literature. Carrite (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NPOV by the article creator labelling writings or speeches as "Propaganda," a term which has since WW1 had a pejorative sense, and "has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples," per the Propaganda article. In the references cited which had functioning weblinks, I could not find the term "propaganda" used to describe the speeches or writings. It fails WP:NOTESSAY as it presents the views of the article writer rather than the views of reliable sources. Edison (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD is not for disputes over the wording of the title. My own view is that it is exactly descriptive, but it can be discussed further. No other reason for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.