Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confiscation Act of 1861


 * 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 keep. Joe 23:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Confiscation Act of 1861
Isolated dictdef with no real chance of possible improvement. Thygard 19:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. I don't know too detailed American history but google suggests it's important, Britannica seems to think it's worthy of an article, et cetera.  Being a stub is not cause to delete an article, it's cause to expand an article. WilyD 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and expand. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 20:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have placed the expansion tag on the article and have placed it on the expansion request page so consider this AFD withdrawn. Thygard 20:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it's on that page, as there is an enormous amount to say about the act, esp. given that the Emancipation Proclamation was very like it in being more of a military act than a political or civil one. Geogre 20:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thygard, please post new AfD's at the bottom, rather than the top of the page. Geogre 20:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. First one I've ever posted. Thygard 20:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. grubber 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep. I want to see some verifiable sources first. If this topic is notable enough, those shouldn't be so hard to find. (Google only gives 66 results for "Confiscation Act of 1861") Please add such sources to the article. Sijo Ripa 21:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is, for example, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica[[User:WilyD|WilyD] 22:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as condition is fulfilled. Sijo Ripa 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I can't see how any reference to a statute could be a "dicdef". That said, there certainly seems to be a basis for this to be a valid stub article, and certainly seems ripe for expansion. Agent 86 22:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as above InvictaHOG 22:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article needs expansion, not deletion. --NeoChaosX 22:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid subject. However, there were two Confiscation Acts--August 6, 1861, and July 17, 1862--which ought to be in the same article, meaning a name change should be in order. See cite below. Hal Jespersen 23:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Syrett, John, "Confiscation Acts", Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History, Heidler, David S., and Heidler, Jeanne T., eds., W. W. Norton & Company, 2000, ISBN 0-393-04758-X.
 * 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.