Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sectionalism


 * 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. We agree that the topic is notable but that the content needs a very great deal of work, possibly a stubbing.  Sandstein  19:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sectionalism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A most unfortunate article, completely unreferenced since its creation. It seems that the bulk of what we have now has been written by well-meaning editors trying to make it better, but all of them are building off of a weasel phrase introduced and only partially removed back near the beginning of the article creation. Article had been proposed for deletion, but prod was removed by 204.100.220.2 as part of a partial page blank, about which I'm assuming GF. More details on the article talk page. Maethordaer (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think a good article could be made on this topic, but the current version is an unsourced personal essay. Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick fix is applied. Mion (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur that it could be made good, but given the bulk of the content is about US pre-civil war politics, the title maybe should be refined, or the US focus made explicit in the intro. As a term of US politics then it's perfectly reasonable to have an article. As an aside, I don't think it would be wise to try to discuss other nation's seperatist tendencies in this article, the talk page examples are really nationalism within an empire, not really the same thing. While it might be possible to start from scratch, the existing article isn't detrimental to achieving the end goal. weak keep MadScot (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a legitimate encyclopaedic topic. As it stands now it's underreferenced - but that's not a criterion for deletion here, where the infos essentially good and there is a refernce and so forth. Wily D  10:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and start anew - the term is an important one in national and world politics, but this article is written in the second person, unreferenced, and written strictly with a local perspective. In this case, it's best to scrape clean and start anew. A replacement article can not only discuss sectionalism in the United States (and not just pre-1865: sectionalism has been prevalent in US politics post-1945 as well), but also in Canada, the United Kingdom, Yugoslavia, France, India, Brazil... and that's just limiting it to the past half century or so. Roman Empire, anybody? B.Wind (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm with Wily here. This is a legitimate, although poorly done, article. It speaks to a serious issue that arose during the most divisive time in US history. Let's work on it and fix it up. JodyBtalk 15:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agreed that it's a legitimate article. Illuminates a transitional form of confederation which isn't commonly expounded upon, the issue arose in the 19th century USA, but also arises in other nations during history. It needs to expand to include more historical and current examples. Let's work on it. --VictorC (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2008 (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.