Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Texas history


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Outline of Texas history

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This "article" is a collection of very loosely related links that claims to be an overview of the history of Texas. In many cases, the links that are included have nothing to do with the scope of this topic and would not be included in a comprehensive history book on the state. (That makes part of this original research, as the creator chose which links to include based on personal preference, not consensus of reliable sources.) No context is provided for most of these links, leading to potential POV issues, a huge problem with many historical articles. The lack of context is also very confusing - how is a reader to know what any of these links actually mean or tell which ones are important? I'm confused by some of them, and I've been doing extensive work improving articles about Texas history. If this article were to be cleaned up to include only pertinent links with an appropriate amount of context, then it would essentially be a stripped-down version of History of Texas (thus making this article a duplication of content -> a content fork).

In short, I believe this article violates WP:OR (in the choice of which links to include), WP:NPOV (lack of context), WP:FORK (as a content fork if the appropriate links/context were to be icluded), and WP:N, as reliable sources don't focus on "outlines" of topics, but the topic itself. I don't believe this article is salvageable.

I understand that these outlines exist for the histories of the other 49 states; I am not nominating all of them because I am not as familiar with their scope and do not know without some research whether they violate the same criteria I've listed. If others wish to make a determination on some of the others and make this a mass nomination, that's fine with me. Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect this AfD will serve as a test case for Wikipedians' collective view of WP:OUTLINE. Personally, I think the best argument for including an outline on Wikipedia is that it serves a navigational function, to enable encyclopaedia users to find content; essentially, according to this view, the outline serves as a structured "List of articles about the history of Texas". Personally, I see this as a fairly strong argument.  It is built on the established consensus at WP:CLN, and I think outlines could, in time, come to serve as Wikipedia's missing "contents" section, which is something we need badly. But, a tenable counterargument would be that this outline duplicates the Index of Texas-related articles and is therefore a content fork.  My personal take is that it's okay to have both contents and index for navigation, but I'm not completely sure and I'd like to see reasoned arguments from other Wikipedians; I reserve the right to change my mind!— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My thought is that a Table of Contents for the topic "history of texas" would be the same as the TOC from the History of Texas article; those interested in finer details could read the overview at that article, then, if they were interested, go to the parent article of a particular section, and continue working their way in as deep as they want. This would provide appropriate context for NPOV purposes and for general understanding of the topic more so than any simple collection of random links that might-or might not- have some association with Texas.  Karanacs (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, although a Wikify is suggested. Some products of the outline project are better than others, and this one is in the "others" group.  The concept of outlines, as I understand it, is to provide an at-a-glance page that summarizes basic facts and the links to the articles.  This one took a wrong turn at Nagodoches, using all the wars fought by the United States as a template.  While the role of Texas in the Mexican War and the Civil War is obvious, the concept of Texas in World War I, World War II, etc. is the round peg in a square hole.  Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be possible to criticise this response for focusing on the current state of the article when AfD should be evaluating its potential state. (In other words, the question we should be asking is, "Is it fixable?")— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then fix it in user space. The Outline Project strives for excellence, and works in progress don't cut it. Mandsford (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Much though I understand this sentiment, a more conventional view at AfD, per WP:BEFORE, is that if it can be fixed, it should remain in the mainspace while fixing is in progress.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Changing my vote to Strong delete. The more I think about it, the more I feel that this is not what the Outline Project was supposed to accomplish, which is to provide information in a concise, at-a-glance form.  Did somebody decide that Outline of Texas didn't have enough information, and that the solution was that the outline needed needed an outline?  Or was it that History of Texas needed to be explained further?  The concept of a short, one-page outline of a subject makes sense, and most topics don't need an outline page at all.  And if Outline of Texas has grown to the extent that someone thinks that part of it now needs to become another page, then that defeats the whole purpose of having Outline of Texas in the first place.  Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair point. It's an outline of the outline.  I'll run with delete on this basis.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This is ought to be called List of Texas history articles. However, unless there are red links (for articles still needed), categories do a much better job than lists.  If kept, the article should be pruned of events related to the history of USA generally, with few specifically Texas-related issues.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to the main outline and the history article. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:41, 19 October 2009 (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.