Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reconstruction and The Changing South


 * 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 merge/redirect I am redirecting, people who are interested in merging content can go ahead and do that. W.marsh 15:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Reconstruction and The Changing South
This article is really an anomaly. A lot of time has obviously been spent on it, but it is really just a rehash of the articles Reconstruction and History of the Southern United States. It is written in somewhat of a storybook style and lacks any citations, so I think a merger would be impossible. I assume good faith in the main editor, but if you look at the talk page, Talk:Reconstruction and The Changing South, he/she didn't seem to understand my concerns. I would propose deletion because of lack of other options. Joshdboz 20:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge anything good with Reconstruction as I'm not sure why there's a need for a seperate article, and if there is valid content, then it should belong there. A split makes no sense, especially when this title reads more like a history book than an Encyclopedia article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this is an article which can later be renamed. But Im not even done making the article. And also the title does read like an encyclopedia article. The naming is perfect, and if anything, the Reconstruction page should be deleted. I made this page with no knowledge of the page Reconstruction which is poorly named.Also this is the offical Deletion policy for why pages should be deleted: The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how material which does not meet the relevant content criteria is identified and removed from Wikipedia. --Zonerocks 21:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are writing an article on a major event in American History and you didn't even know that the Reconstruction page existed? That speaks against the creation of this article, since you didn't even look at what else there is.  The title itself is not good for an Encyclopedia because it hints to me of a value-based description rather than a factual one.  Can you imagine anybody searching for it?  If not, then it shouldn't be the title of an article.  If your page isn't done though, you may wish to look at WP:Sandbox particularly the User page section, especially since you seem to want to write so much of it yourself.   FrozenPurpleCube 23:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as its scope appears to be no different from that of Reconstruction. The author should improve that article rather than creating a fork and calling for the article's deletion, which is not going to happen. Gazpacho 21:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * MergeReads like a nice term paper, and appears to be original. But it needs embedded footnotes or at least reference at the end. Otherwise how can we justify "President Johnson encouraged former Confederate states to reject the Fourteenth Amendment. He also decided to make the amendment an issue in the 1866 congressional elections." Mindreading?? Also, it seems like a smaller article at an earlier stage of formation striving to be the article on reconstruction. Why not just add any notable and encyclopedic material to that other article, along with footnotes.Edison 21:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The reason why I said that I would discourage a merger is because it would be nearly impossible to tell what information should be merged because no references or citations exist in the article. Joshdboz 21:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment well im going to add the links when im done making the article. I told you that. --Zonerocks 03:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems after 6 days (more than the discussion over deleted articles is supposed to be.) There is no consensus so this article can not be deleted. --Zonerocks 16:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * An administrator can choose to relist. Is there some particular reason you don't want to work on the existing Reconstruction article? Gazpacho 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Relisting it is abusing the AFD policy. There was no consensus to delete it, so there you didn't win the fight. Deal with it. --Zonerocks 14:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, in fact the deletion procedure allows administrators to extend a listing to gain a clearer consensus. And you have not answered my question. Gazpacho 01:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete merging anything that is supportable with reliable sources into Reconstruction. Adding citations to this article will not change the fact that the scope of this article is not substantially different from the scope of the Reconstruction article.  Since Merge and Delete have very similar effects (i.e. this article will no longer exist), it seems clear that the consensus of the debate is "Do Not Keep".  --Richard 04:24, 7 October 2006 (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.