Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Educational segregation in Sunflower County, Mississippi


 * 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. No 'keeps', one neutral, 2 deletes (including nom); the lack of a clear "keep" from anyone is sufficient to render the consensus here to be to delete --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Educational segregation in Sunflower County, Mississippi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Essay / original research? &mdash; RHaworth 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. * makes Elder Sign* Begone! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutrality aside, what original conclusion is it synthesizing that isn't in the sources cited? Have you even read the sources cited? Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The incarceration rate of black male teenagers and the dropout rates in Drew’s public schools is shockingly similar. A+B=C = smells distinctly of synth. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And you've checked the source cited to ensure that it's not simply a conclusion drawn by the source, have you? You've ensured that Constance Curry doesn't make any such assertion?  (Hint: We know that she does, even without seeing the documentary, because it's mentioned in reviews of Curry's work.)  Uncle G (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, then, in that case I'll withdraw the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH concerns, thanks for clarifying that. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 16:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are probably enough sources to make a biography of Mae Bertha Carter, whom this article in part is really about.
 * But there are sources that do indeed talk about segregation, educational and otherwise, specifically in Sunflower County. This is something that history books address, and is far from an original thesis concocted by a Wikipedia editor firsthand.  The subject is peppered throughout  for example.
 * Wikipedia doesn't even yet mention the fact that Sunflower County was where Fannie Lou Hamer grew up and was sometimes known as "Eastland's Plantation", after James Eastland
 * And if you want someone other than Constance Curry expounding the thesis that in 2000 education in Sunflower County was still, in effect, largely segregated, try the Z. Smith Reynolds Professor of Public Policy at Duke University saying it at.
 * Like it or not, this is a subject that is in the history books. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are certainly essay-like tendencies in the article, although I am not entirely sure about the OR claims. However, my main reason for supporting deletion is that racial segregation and racism was nationwide (albeit the institutionalization of this was probably at its nastiest in the southern states such as Mississippi), and there is little reason to single out Sunflower County as a particular example of this. Virtually all the descriptions of how the segregation and racism happened, and what it leads to, in Sunflower County is parallel to what happened in other places. Racial segregation in the United States covers the topic well already. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had added Category:Local civil rights history in the United States, which suggests to me, anyway, that what happens at the local level can be historically significant. Bringing up the old WP:NOTPAPER argument, I wouldn't mind seeing articles on local segregation history for every county in the U.S., provided that they can be reliably sourced. School segregation was very much a local issue, Sjakkalle, addressed in very different ways from place to place. So far, I have not seen an argument that compels me to support, so oppose deletion, per WP:PRESERVE (I was the dePRODder, too). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete . Uncle G has assuaged my concerns with regards to OR and SYNTH (although I'd suspect the author of the reference in question might well have SYNTH'd the fact I questioned in the first place...but that's neither here nor there). However I still have serious concerns about the article's tone and POV, and in addition it's potential as soapboxing - it reads, to me, very much as a "southerners were stupid evil bigots and should never be forgiven" kind of article. The subject, as mentioned, seems to be indeed notable. However I don't think "History of segreation in county" is the way to go for articles of this type. "History of segreation in state", however, would be a much more notable, cover-able, and encyclopedic subject. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But as an American editor -- and judging by your userpage, a Southerner -- would you not agree that so much of what makes up state or even national politics takes place at the county level? That's one of the unique aspects of the US system, it seems to me. For example, the lead for Jim Crow laws states that there were "state and local laws" (italics mine). Don't get me wrong: I'd be happy to see a state-wide article on segregation in Mississippi. (Although at this level of detail, the nominated article would probably need to stay separate.) I just don't see a need to delete this because it's only for a single county, so far. As for tone and POV issues, surely we have other ways to address those than deletion? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm. I suppose you do have a point there. Wouldn't the county/local laws be covered under the state article, though? I reckon you do have a point about the content, so I'm chaniging to Neutral - if kept, though, the article probably should be completely rewritten from scratch. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree county/local laws should be covered under the state article. But if we get more county-level articles like this one, we'd need to have summaries in the parent article for the state, linking to local articles like this one. I'm under no illusions that this'll happen tomorrow, but there's such a fascinating and rich local history in your neck of the woods, where the battle for civil rights was fought town by town -- heck, lunch counter by lunch counter -- that restricting ourselves to a national or state-wide focus would lose so much, it seems to me. All politics is local, Tip O'Neil once said. Seems to me particularly true in this area... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, after tinkering with it and trying to save it, I've cut the entire final section called "Incarceration." That does seem to me to be WP:SOAP and rather off-topic. It makes some vague hand waves at funding levels for an unnamed college and state penitentiary to back up some utterly unfounded assertions, imo. "The whole business of incarceration has ceased to be punishment and has taken on a life of its own" is unproven and highly POV. Also" "Mississippi state penitentiary received over 60 million dollars in funding due to the severity of racial problems that have led to the high number of crimes. In comparison, the local college barely received 20 million dollars. This proves that the more education one has in Sunflower County, the less chances of going to prison." is a clumsy argument. I agree that education is probably the best way to avoid crime and imprisonment, but comparing the budgets of an unnamed local college and a state penitentiary "proves" none of that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be better to attribute that view to the person who holds it, rather than removing it outright. See these and note in particular what they say about the thesis presented by Curry's epilogue:
 * There's probably a main article to link it to somewhere, too, given these:
 * Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Education segregation is a sufficiently clear topic for an article. It isn't helped by adding topic on a separate issue, imo, no matter how many refs we can attribute this view to. If you wish to restore the section with refs, rewritten so as to not be a mere polemic against local and state officials and their ascribed motives, go for it. I'm not going to edit war on this one, I assure you. I just don't think the article needs it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2010 (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.
 * Hm. I suppose you do have a point there. Wouldn't the county/local laws be covered under the state article, though? I reckon you do have a point about the content, so I'm chaniging to Neutral - if kept, though, the article probably should be completely rewritten from scratch. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree county/local laws should be covered under the state article. But if we get more county-level articles like this one, we'd need to have summaries in the parent article for the state, linking to local articles like this one. I'm under no illusions that this'll happen tomorrow, but there's such a fascinating and rich local history in your neck of the woods, where the battle for civil rights was fought town by town -- heck, lunch counter by lunch counter -- that restricting ourselves to a national or state-wide focus would lose so much, it seems to me. All politics is local, Tip O'Neil once said. Seems to me particularly true in this area... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, after tinkering with it and trying to save it, I've cut the entire final section called "Incarceration." That does seem to me to be WP:SOAP and rather off-topic. It makes some vague hand waves at funding levels for an unnamed college and state penitentiary to back up some utterly unfounded assertions, imo. "The whole business of incarceration has ceased to be punishment and has taken on a life of its own" is unproven and highly POV. Also" "Mississippi state penitentiary received over 60 million dollars in funding due to the severity of racial problems that have led to the high number of crimes. In comparison, the local college barely received 20 million dollars. This proves that the more education one has in Sunflower County, the less chances of going to prison." is a clumsy argument. I agree that education is probably the best way to avoid crime and imprisonment, but comparing the budgets of an unnamed local college and a state penitentiary "proves" none of that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be better to attribute that view to the person who holds it, rather than removing it outright. See these and note in particular what they say about the thesis presented by Curry's epilogue:
 * There's probably a main article to link it to somewhere, too, given these:
 * Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Education segregation is a sufficiently clear topic for an article. It isn't helped by adding topic on a separate issue, imo, no matter how many refs we can attribute this view to. If you wish to restore the section with refs, rewritten so as to not be a mere polemic against local and state officials and their ascribed motives, go for it. I'm not going to edit war on this one, I assure you. I just don't think the article needs it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2010 (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.
 * There's probably a main article to link it to somewhere, too, given these:
 * Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Education segregation is a sufficiently clear topic for an article. It isn't helped by adding topic on a separate issue, imo, no matter how many refs we can attribute this view to. If you wish to restore the section with refs, rewritten so as to not be a mere polemic against local and state officials and their ascribed motives, go for it. I'm not going to edit war on this one, I assure you. I just don't think the article needs it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2010 (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.
 * Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Education segregation is a sufficiently clear topic for an article. It isn't helped by adding topic on a separate issue, imo, no matter how many refs we can attribute this view to. If you wish to restore the section with refs, rewritten so as to not be a mere polemic against local and state officials and their ascribed motives, go for it. I'm not going to edit war on this one, I assure you. I just don't think the article needs it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2010 (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.