Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militia Act of 1792

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 and prematurely close the debate after a complete rewrite, per Lar. Sandstein 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Militia Act of 1792

Militia Act of 1792 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Is only a source text. It has already been imported to Wikisource (s:Militia Act of 1792) --Benn Newman 02:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Good material but does not belong here. Wikisource is the right place. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Keep now that it has been rewritten. Needs sourcing though. Nice job, Smerdis. I suspect, CORNELIUSSEON possibly needs to be helped to understand the issue with sources vs. articles though. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 03:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • From User talk:CORNELIUSSEON:

If you had bothered to look at the list of linking articles that are supported by that article, you would have seen that it is a sub-page of the article on the US national Guard, and one of several sub-pages performing that task. As such, I would have had no resort but to replace the article with one just like it since it still provides support to a Main Article on the US National Guard. I would recommend that you do your homework properly before you threaten to do a hatchet job on someone else's work. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • In response, I'd recommend deleting and replacing it with a soft redirect then. MER-C 04:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Further, that suggests that some of the articles that link to it (and are closely related) may also be candidates for transwiki-fication... (for example Militia Act of 1862) The key point here is that the info has been preserved and has been placed in the right place. This is a source, and wikipedia is not the place to keep sources. WikiSOURCE is. Please assume good faith on the part of newmanbe (who actually did the work of transwikiing it) ++Lar: t/c 09:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to s:Militia Act of 1792. SkierRMH,09:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and replace the link with an interwiki link, or the article with an article about the act, instead of the text of the act itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace links to the Wikisource page per above. If someone wants to write a brief synopsis and discussion of the import of this Act, illustrated by excerpts, by all means do so; that's what's at Militia Act of 1862. That is an encyclopedia style article. The topic certainly could support an article; this source text is not it. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - article entirely rewritten - I replaced the source text with a brief synopsis of the statutes in question and added the Wikisource link to the original text there. Interest people should review what I wrote to make sure that it covers all of the important points. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per SoT. Smerdis, you are a Wiki-superhero. -Toptomcat 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - encyclopedic, and now an article rather than just a source. Great job, Smerdis! schi talk 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It now looks like a keeper. --Brianyoumans 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Smerdis of Tlön's rewrite looks good, I'd just like to see it sourced.--Isotope23 19:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per rewrite. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Benn Newman 12:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Nom has changed view, and all comments since rewrite are keep (often with the admonition it needs better sourcing). Perhaps an IAR Speedy Close is in order here? :) the problem seems sorted. ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I would enquire over at the Military History project and their sub-projects before you make any other changes - and inform them of the changes you have made as well, since they are likely to fix those changes according to their policies. I did not write that article just to suit my needs - it was part of a much larger project. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:31, 12 December 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.