Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bureaucracy in the United States


 * 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 delete. There is a strong consensus that this article is a content fork and any sourced content is better placed in other, existing articles on the subject of governance in the U.S. Additionally, the only editors advocating Keeping this article are the article creator and an editor who provided no Keep rationale. So to me, this decision seems close to unanimous. Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Bureaucracy in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The "Bureaucracy of the United States" isn't a separate entity—the content of this article can be (and is) explained better in Federal government of the United States. Lead section is directly copied from here. All sources given and that I could find use the term "Federal Bureaucracy" and "Bureaucracy of the United States" to refer to the organization of the Executive Branch of the US. Plagued with original research as there's not any WP:V sources that explain the bureaucracy of America that isn't already in here. WP:PROD failed and not enough salvageable content to merge as it's all included in Federal government of the United States. Written as an essay. Quaemenelimbus ( 🗨 here ) ^_^ 01:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Quaemenelimbus  ( 🗨 here ) ^_^ 01:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, this seems to overlap with the Executive Branch section of the Federal government of the United States page, and the part that doesn't suffers from, and will continue to be prone to, WP:OR (and confusion), because of the word "bureaucracy" which isn't actually a formal term for a U.S. governmental entity. That said, if someone wants to add well-sourced, neutrally presented information/assessments of "bureaucracy in the United States" somewhere in the future, a good place for it might be the main Bureaucracy article itself. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What do mean by "if someone wants to add well-sourced, neutrally presented"? What's the problem with these sources? . If you think that the problem is that the term "bureaucracy" being informal, then we can discuss adding "informal" to the top of the article. It's that simple. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC) The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * that the term "bureaucracy" being informal, then we can discuss adding "informal" to the top of the article.—the issue isn't the formality of the term. The issue is that it violates WP:FORUM:
 * "original ideas, defining terms, coining new words"


 * The notion that the "Bureaucracy of the United States" is its own federal body violates the above. The sources, once again, use the term bureaucracy to refer to the departments of the Executive Branch as they go into detail about the Executive Branch in their content but use the term as a shorthand. Even if the sources met WP:SIGCOV for this term, it is better explained in the context of all the other branches of the US government hence the article Federal government of the United States. I would propose a merge but all content in the nominated article is already included in the articles mentioned in this discussion already. Quaemenelimbus  ( 🗨 here ) ^_^ 17:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * the issue isn't the formality of the term. The issue is that it violates WP:FORUM: original ideas, defining terms, coining new words you keep saying the same thing again and again! Again, I did NOT make up these terms, I took them from the cited sources. Thus, I did not violate any rule.


 * The sources, once again, use the term bureaucracy to refer to the departments of the Executive Branch as they go into detail about the Executive Branch in their content but use the term as a shorthand. once again, please back your claim. Repeating yourself won't make your claims correct. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand you took them from sources. However, just because a source mentions something doesn't mean that the "Bureaucracy of the United States" is an independent body. It is not an entity. We should be using these sources to improve articles that have the context to explain this without synthesis or OR. Quaemenelimbus  ( 🗨 here ) ^_^ 21:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep every single information in the article is cited with reliable source that is verifiable. You could've checked these sources and knew that I didn't add anything from my head if you've read the article to the end. No information is WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR because I copied and pasted the text from the sources into the article after rewording it. Please, tell me what's the problem with these sources? .  All of them mentioned the term "bureaucracy" and "United States" explicitly! I did NOT add ANY source that didn't say "bureaucracy" AND "United States" explicitly! The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's even worse. Copying and pasting is a violation of WP:COPYVIO. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * after rewording itThe★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Regarding the lead section, I can fix it and replace it with a well-sourced one.
 * 2. "All sources given and that I could find use the term "Federal Bureaucracy" and "Bureaucracy of the United States" to refer to the organization of the Executive Branch of the US. so what? The article is trying to explain the organization of the executive branch and the term bureaucracy. What's wrong with that?
 * 3. Plagued with original research as there's not any WP:V sources that explain the bureaucracy of America that isn't already in here.
 * a. No single piece of information in this article exists in the federal government of the United States article. If there's any that I could not notice, please point them out for me so I can discuss that with you.
 * b. the information being presented in another article does not mean its not verifiable. Because you still can click on the sources and check them for yourself.
 * c. Written as an essay I don't think it's written as an essay. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There is some meaningful content in the page, but it's already included in Federal government of the United States, which has a larger scope which can explain the organization of the Executive Branch in the context of all other parts of government. The article is trying to explain the organization of the executive branch and the term bureaucracy.—if we want to use the US as an example to explain bureaucracy, it should be done in the Bureaucracy article instead of making an article with limited scope that can't be fleshed out without WP:OR. The organization of the Executive Branch should be (and already is) explained in this article—as said in the nomination the "Bureaucracy of the United States" or the "Federal Bureaucracy" is just a concept that refers to the Executive Branch. There's no reliable sources that give this term anything but a passing mention as a shorthand to the Executive Branch. Thus it doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. The information in this article can be used to explain bureaucracy in the context of the Executive Branch and in the Bureaucracy article, but as no reliable sources mention this as a separate entity from the Executive Branch it doesn't merit an article. As per WP:FORUM we shouldn't make up terms that don't exist in reliable sources but instead should use "Bureaucracy in the United States" to explain Bureaucracy better by explaining it in the context of the US. Quaemenelimbus  ( 🗨 here ) ^_^ 14:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating yourself without answering my questions. I asked you to point out the information that is already included in the Federal government of the United States. You didn't mention a single example which implies that there isn't any!
 * I never said that this article is trying to use the US as an example of bureaucracy. I said this article is trying to explain the organization of the executive branch and the term bureaucracy.
 * Can you, please, explain with details how this article is an original reseasrch when there is not a single piece of information that is not cited and not a single source that is not verfiable? If you think that the sources are not reliable or not verfiable, the can you explain how?
 * the "Bureaucracy of the United States" or the "Federal Bureaucracy" is just a concept that refers to the Executive Branch— what makes you think so? do you have anything to back up your claim?
 * As per WP:FORUM we shouldn't make up terms that don't exist in reliable sources I already cited multible reliable sources that mention the term. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't mention a single example which implies that there isn't any! From Federal government of the United States: "Article II's Appointments Clause provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States" while providing that "Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.""


 * This excerpt specifically says the President appoints the members of the Executive Branch. This covers what is mentioned in the nominated article.
 * From the same article: "The daily enforcement and administration of federal laws is in the hands of the various federal executive departments, created by Congress to deal with specific areas of national and international affairs."


 * This details the structure and the distribution of the Executive Branch's departments which is the entire point of the nominated article and it's explained in better context.
 * I already cited multiple reliable sources that mention the term. Right, they do mention it, but they just use it to refer to the Executive Branch. It's not an independent construct. The "Leader of the United States" refers to the President, but the former isn't an official title.
 * what makes you think so? do you have anything to back up your claim? All of the sources you give that "explicitly mention" the term "Bureaucracy of the United States" are describing the Executive Branch. In this source you cited, the title is "Bureaucracy and Democracy: The Case for More Bureaucracy and Less Democracy." As mentioned above, bureaucracy in the context of the US refers to the Executive Branch as it is the body run by unelected and appointed federal officials that make decisions. It's not an independent body.
 * Can you, please, explain with details how this article is an original reseasrch From the nominated article:
 * "When electoral institutions provide clear goals for bureaucracies, provide them with sufficient resources, and give them the freedom to apply their expertise to a problem, bureaucracies function best and can make the most contributions to the process of making policies."


 * If this isn't WP:OR, it's certainly a WP:NPOV violation. Normally this wouldn't be grounds for deletion per se, but the WP:FORUM title limits the scope to articles that explicitly mention "American bureaucracy," which only mentions the executive branch, requiring synthesis to merit its inclusion in the nominated article rather than in Federal government of the United States. Quaemenelimbus  ( 🗨 here ) ^_^ 17:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The content you quoted from the federal government of the United States is not what the nominated article is about. The nominated article is about the bureaucracy, while the other article is about something different.
 * This details the structure and the distribution of the Executive Branch's departments which is the entire point of the nominated article and it's explained in better context. this article is not about the Executive Branch structure, it's about how the executive branch (as a whole), along with the independent agencies, work together in creating what is called the American bureaucracy. The structure of the executive branch is not the whole point of this article.


 * If this isn't WP:OR, it's certainly a WP:NPOV violation this is definitely not WP:OR. If you looked at the sources cited, you would have knew that for yourself. Anyways, I've a cited it to avoid confusion. Regarding neutrality, this does not apply here as I stated raw facts backed with reliable source. I didn't take anyone's side.


 * bureaucracy in the context of the US refers to the Executive Branch as it is the body run by unelected and appointed federal officials that make decisions.— bureaucracy is bureaucracy. When you claim that it's not, then you'll have to back your claim.
 * Normally this wouldn't be grounds for deletion per se, but the WP:FORUM title limits the scope to articles that explicitly mention "American bureaucracy," which only mentions the executive branch, requiring synthesis to merit its inclusion in the nominated article rather than in Federal government of the United States — you're wrong. There's tons of sources that mention "Bureaucracy in the United States" just click on the links above next to the title of the article and you’ll see yourself. Plus, bureaucracy is not another term for the executive branch. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what the Federal government of the United States explains. It explains how the Executive Branch is structured, its purpose, and how appointments work etc...
 * bureaucracy is bureaucracy. When you claim that it's not, then you'll have to back your claim.
 * My claim is that this article does not accomplish anything that is not already mentioned and this article fails WP:FORUM which hasn't been addressed by any !voters.
 * There's tons of sources that mention "Bureaucracy in the United States"
 * Yes, but they should be mentioned in here as it's not a separate entity from the Executive Branch. Again, the content of the nominated article can be explained better in the context of others. Also, please add a "* Comment" tag so it's clear what I should reply to. Thanks. Quaemenelimbus  ( 🗨 here ) ^_^ 19:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment No, the content's place is in this article and the sources that talk about bureaucracy in the United States should be placed in the article that talks about the bureaucracy in the United States. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion is about whether or not this article is suitable to hold this content in the first place. As explained above, Federal government of the United States would make a better fit and I believe spending time improving that article would make the coverage of this topic better as it can be explained in the context/scope of the entire US government. The nominated article needs synthesis to add any new information that is not already mentioned in other US gov articles.
 * No, the content's place is in this article—please explain how it has a place in this article, as it is the root of the discussion. In the section Bureaucracy and Democracy of the nominated article, ignoring the unencyclopedic writing style, its content would be much better explained (and in my opinion, already is) in the context of this article and here. The latter article could benefit from some talk about US bureaucracy as its context fits this topic much better. Bureaucracy already uses certain countries as examples.
 * the sources that talk about bureaucracy in the United States should be placed in the article that talks about the bureaucracy in the United States—as mentioned above, these sources would be an improvement to Federal government of the United States, but the structure of US bureaucracy is already mentioned there and here. As an individual body, it doesn't meet WP:GNG as it's never talked about outside of the context of the Executive Branch/independent agencies, and US bureaucracy isn't a real entity. Quaemenelimbus  ( 🗨 here ) ^_^ 20:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * please explain how it has a place in this article This article is about bureaucracy in the United States, and the sources talk about bureaucracy in the United States, so it's better to place the sources inside the article that talks about the bureaucracy in the United States, not in the article that talks about federal government. The nominated article is not about the goverment and its structure. It's about the bureaucracy in the United States. The executive branch is part of the bureaucracy so it's part of the article's interest. Thus the article talks about the Executive Branch inside the context of the US bureaucracy (not the government). That makes it part of the topic but not the whole topic.
 * US bureaucracy isn't a real entity You might say that it does not exist but the sources I cited say otherwise. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * its content would be much better explained (and in my opinion, already is) in the context of this article and here. what you don't understand is that the nominated article and the federal government of the United States article are different from each other. Each one of them is talking about different topic. There are no common factors between them. The first one is about bureaucracy and the latter is about totally different topic (US government). So there's no possible way to merge this article into the latter. Hope this help clarifying things out. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Going to respond to this with a bit of a lengthy response but bear with me here.
 * so it's better to place the sources inside the article that talks about the bureaucracy in the United States, not in the article that talks about federal government.—Definition of bureaucracy:
 * "a system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives."


 * See United States federal executive departments. Describes the departments of the US Executive Branch. Organization is described in the article and also in here. These two articles already fulfil the purposes of the nominated article while providing more context. As mentioned many times above, the sources you keep mentioning are the only ones that can be used and they don't have any new content that isn't described in the two articles I mentioned above. Let me give an example of WP:NOR/WP:INDEPENDENT violations in the nominated article caused by this issue:
 * "They properly believe that they have a democratic mandate from voters to carry out the political program they promised those voters."


 * Clearly not WP:NPOV. Probably due to the vast majority of references in the article (aka the only ones that use the term "Federal Bureaucracy") are tirades against expansion of elected positions in the US. Source is paywalled (as are many of the sources in the article) but from the abstract it's clear that it's not neutral by any means. This issue plagues many of the sources. At least the ones I could access since most of them are inaccessible without paying/just unavailable in its entirety. Obviously this one sentence isn't the basis for the AfD, but it's clear that the other content in this article is sourced from WP:INDEPENDENT-violating sources. I'll bring up this point later in my analysis of your argument.
 * Now on to the second part of this argument, not in the article that talks about federal government. Going back to the definition of bureaucracy above, it is, by definition, referring to the Executive Branch (shortening to EB) The President appoints members of the EB to make the important decisions like deploying troops (Dept. of Defense), managing education (Dept. of Education), etc...
 * Evidently the term "bureaucracy" in the context of the US obviously refers to  the EB. The US bureaucratic system isn't a special body of the US unless you can supplement that claim with actual WP:V and WP:INDEPENDENT sources unlike those referenced in the nominated article.
 * it's about the bureaucracy in the United States. The executive branch is part of the bureaucracy so it's part of the article's interest.
 * I'm afraid you've missed the point. The US bureaucracy, by definition (see above), refers to the EB; it isn't actually the EB as it's not an official term (see above). Article was edited to say "...the informal term for..." in the lead section. This doesn't really fix the WP:FORUM issue as it brings in more WP:OR to try and justify its inclusion as a seperate article.
 * The nominated article is not about the goverment and its structure. It's about the bureaucracy in the United States. Ah, unfortunately this is a circular argument. The bureaucracy of the US refers to the EB's structure, organization, and functions, all of which are already explained in better context and without the need to include sources tirading for/against bureaucracy as the only information that the nominated article can potentially be justified for inclusion separate from the other ones already mentioned in this AfD. The nominated article has to synthesize these non-independent sources which is doubly bad for the article. There's no merit to keep this synthesis-infested article when we could instead use it to improve others in their respective contexts. Per User:Spinningspark, we should instead use this information to improve the coverage of the history of bureaucratic growth in the US.
 * what you don't understand is that the nominated article and the federal government of the United States article are different from each other. Each one of them is talking about different topic. There are no common factors between them. The first one is about bureaucracy and the latter is about totally different topic (US government).—the topic is the same per what I've said above.
 * there's no possible way to merge this article into the latter.—this is a false dichotomy you are presenting here. There is some information here we can use to improve other articles. But as mentioned many times in this AfD, this niche title can't be used for proper referencing without infecting this article with synthesis and some original research. I know I've said this 100 times already in this reply, but this topic is better explained in the context of others where synthesis from WP:INDEPENDENT-violating sources isn't an issue. Quaemenelimbus  ( 🗨 here ) ^_^ 18:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * comment:
 * As mentioned many times above, the sources you keep mentioning are the only ones that can be used and they don't have any new content that isn't described in the two articles I mentioned above.
 * false dichotomy. There are many sources as I stated earlier and I'm planning to expand the article with variety of other sources that represent different points of views on the topic.
 * this article is sourced from WP:INDEPENDENT-violating sources.
 * regarding the independent sources, I cited many sources, many of which are independent (unless you have something against Richard Rose book, and Amanda Claybaugh's paper, and Joseph Postell book, and David S. Rohde book to prove that they are non-indpendent).
 * I assume that the one you mean by non-independent is the one belonging to Kenneth J. Meier (being a former Republican politician). But you keep talking as if the whole sources are non-independent which is hasty generalization.
 * Let me give an example of WP:NOR/WP:INDEPENDENT violations in the nominated article caused by this issue:
 * "They properly believe that they have a democratic mandate from voters to carry out the political program they promised those voters."


 * definition of an independent source:
 * "Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved."


 * David S. Rohde is an American author and investigative journalist who currently serves as the online news director for The New Yorker. He is not under any influence, thus he is independent. Plus, he is a 1996 Pulitzer Prize winner and 2010 Michael Kelly Award winner.
 * There's no merit to keep this synthesis-infested article
 * first : as I stated before there is no synthesis in the article. I just rephrased what the sources say. Please explain how the article is " synthesis-infested" with examples?
 * second: you said earlier that you don't have access to most of the sources because they are paywalled, so how can you claim that the article is "synthesis-infested" without looking at the sources?
 * But as mentioned many times in this AfD, this niche title can't be used for proper referencing without infecting this article with synthesis and some original research.
 * And what exactly makes you think that the only way to add more information to this article is through synthesis and original research? Isn't that a "false dichotomy"? There are definitely tons of ways you can add more information to the article! If the title requires you to search harder to add more information, it doesn't mean that original research and synthesis are the only ways!
 * lastly, If you're accusing this article of being non-nutral then you can add Template:Neutral to the article. This reason is not enough to nominate the article for deletion. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Further comment: it appears the line They properly believe that they have a democratic mandate from voters to carry out the political program they promised those voters has been removed. However, I would like to mention that this line shows a larger problem with the article as a whole. For reasons said above, the content can't be expanded without synthesis. Although this is a welcome improvement, I don't believe it fixes the underlying issue. Quaemenelimbus  ( 🗨 here ) ^_^ 23:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: To be honest, I don't understand what the problem with this line, but I removed it anyway to avoid confusion. The original line (which is from this book) is as follows:
 * Every modern American president has expressed distrust of career government officials in Washington. They view themselves, correctly, as carrying a democratic mandate from voters to implement the policy platform that they promised voters. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * false dichotomy. There are many sources as I stated earlier and I'm planning to expand the article with variety of other sources that represent different points of views on the topic.
 * This argument doesn't address the root issue. The issue with the article is that it has a limited context.
 * unless you have something against Richard Rose book, and Amanda Claybaugh's paper, and Joseph Postell book, and David S. Rohde book to prove that they are non-indpendent
 * I'll concede some of the sources are independent (but I can't access them). However, the main problem with this article is that the term bureaucracy refers to the EB of the US. It's not a separate entity. You've said this article's purpose isn't to explain the organization of the EB. In that case, what is the purpose of this article? By definition, the term bureaucracy is the collective of non-elected policy-making government officials. It's clear that it refers to the EB. This argument has went unaddressed so far by anyone voting keep: This article's content is better explained in the context of the EB and the individual groups of the departments of the US. I've explained my rationale for this above so I won't get into it again. The main sources in this article, per Spinningspark, are just arguments for/against bureaucracy. I'll WP:AGF that these books you've mentioned are very good sources even though I can't access them (the ones I could access were very clearly one-sided opinionated arguments). Why not use them in Federal government of the United States or explain the connections to the rest of the "US bureaucracy" in the individual departments/agencies' articles? The context of these articles doesn't mean you have to limit yourself to using sources that "explicitly mention" the term "US bureaucracy." Instead of making an article with an unclear purpose we can improve other articles using these said sources.
 * first : as I stated before there is no synthesis in the article. I just rephrased what the sources say. Please explain how the article is " synthesis-infested" with examples?
 * Maybe it's not so much synthesis as it is the only substantial content that uses the term "US bureaucracy" w/o describing the EB are opinionated pieces failing WP:INDEPENDENT (see this source that provides the only content that seems separate from the EB's structure and organization)
 * And what exactly makes you think that the only way to add more information to this article is through synthesis and original research? Isn't that a "false dichotomy"? There are definitely tons of ways you can add more information to the article! If the title requires you to search harder to add more information, it doesn't mean that original research and synthesis are the only ways!
 * This is not a false dichotomy, although even if it was it doesn't invalidate the point I'm making here. There are ways you can add content to the article, but you would only be adding content describing the EB and at that point there's no use keeping this article because the context of it is very narrow compared to Federal government of the United States and other possible articles. Quaemenelimbus  ( 🗨 here ) ^_^ 21:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Xx78900 (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominated article is about the unelected policy-making body run by federal officials. Perhaps we can expand the Federal government of the United States article to include a sentence or two about about the content in this article but this article explains it pretty well. These two articles already cover the entire scope of the article w/o violating WP:FORUM and being plagued with WP:OR as a result. Quaemenelimbus  ( 🗨 here ) ^_^ 19:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't get the point of this at all. Per nom, Federal government of the United States and related articles can cover these concepts, and this doesn't present as a coherent topic here. These sections, especially that on "Independent agencies" which doesn't describe Independent agencies of the United States government, don't relate to each other or present more than standalone facts. It could be draftified perhaps. Reywas92Talk 15:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain with details how the Federal government of the United States and related articles covered these concepts? I searched inside the said article and found that it does not mention this term, not even once. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I said that they can cover these concepts, not that they do now. Some info could be moved there, while other info is unrelated info that doesn't form a cohesive article on the topic. Reywas92Talk 03:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * the CIA, State Department, FBI, Pentagon are the independant agencies. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's wrong and shows a misunderstanding of US government, cementing my vote for deletion. Only the CIA is an independent agency, which is defined as agencies outside of the Cabinet departments. The Pentagon advocating a certain position to the president is hardly a good description of bureaucracy. Reywas92Talk 03:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. Another related article you may want to take a look at is Deep state in the United States, which does discuss the role of bureaucracy and has cross over with what I think you're after (given that you keep citing the David Rohde book). That might be a good place to start editing. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't "keep citing David Rohde book". I cited it once. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (I just meant, in the context of this discussion.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. A large part of this article is a diatribe against bureaucracy. Delete per WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. SpinningSpark 23:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is scope for an article on the growth of US bureacracy during and following the Civil War, but this page is not it. The single sentence on this topic says bureacracy started in the Civil War.  That is neither true nor validated by the sources. SpinningSpark 23:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Far from fixed. SpinningSpark 14:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how this article violated WP:SYNTH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I hestitate to relist this discussion given its length but I think we need to hear from more editors. I need to warn User:Super ninja2, please do not bludgeon the process. It's fine to make inquiries of editors who participate in this discussion but this is not a deposition and other editors don't need to respond to all of your questions if they don't want to. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 05:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: The article reads like it was written by someone with an extreme personal distaste for bureaucracy. I'm not sure that it would be the end of the world to have this article in addition to Federal government of the United States but I hope if the article is kept it is edited to be more neutral. Also as an aside the article says bureaucracy started in the Civil War (1861-1865) but weren't there bureaucratic functions of the government as far back as the 18th century? BogLogs (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete As has been mentioned by various editors above, most of the sourced information here is better suited to several other articles, and is generally already there. I don't see how this would end up being much more than an essay. Joyous! | Talk 19:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic can be better addressed in Federal government of the United States and associated articles. Edge3 (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as an obvious content fork per others above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.