Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern opposition to Reconstruction

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. --Coredesat 04:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern opposition to Reconstruction

Southern opposition to Reconstruction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article, written by an IP editor, is essentially a POV essay. Despite its considerable length, it has no in-line references for the many controversial claims it makes, and according to Rjensen, who has actually read the works listed in the bibliography, the article contradicts everything those books and articles say. The article is also incomplete, for instance making but passing mention of the Scalawags, who comprised around a quarter of the Southern population, and dealing little with actual opposition, as opposed to Republican Party policy. Finally, the topic is well-covered at the main Reconstruction article. For these reasons, the article, at least in its current form, should be scrapped. Biruitorul 04:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unneeded, poorly written and poorly sourced essay. Maybe a POV fork, but from my skimming it looks more like someone just wanted a place to publish their essay. --Allen 06:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not just "poorly sourced"; it does not have *any* sources save for the "References" at the end. This despite numerous {{cn}} tags standing in the article for quite a while.

Furthermore, the peculiar bracketed numbers in the article may indicate the article is a copy of some sort of term paper. The author being unknown, I'd suspect copyvio. Digwuren 07:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I have made my objections clear on the discussion page of the article. Having read the Perman and Foner books listed in the references I can say that they in no way whatsoever support this article. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is an important and encyclopedic subject, even if it does need a re-write/fact-check. It merits being broken out from the main Reconstruction article for more attention. Delete or redirect this page, but merge any useful info. into Redemption (United States history). Thanks for bringing the fuller history of this page to my attention. Sounds like what's needed is integration of anything useful from this at Redemption (United States history)? The article being discussed here is lengthy and reasonably well-written and hence my sympathy is with keeping the info. if it isn't a copy-vio, but I am in no position to judge the material on its (factual) merits. Editors at the page on redemption need to hash this out. I'd suggest dumping the whole page into a Talk or other sub-page there and let them decide the factual matters by citing reference material. JJL 16:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This "more attention" violates the important Wikipedia policy of WP:POVFORK.
  • As for important -- yes, the subject is important. But this article is not usable for this purpose. Digwuren 17:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • • See the discussion page of the article Redemption (United States history) (This is a spinoff from that article, not the Reconstruction article). The editor who created this page fully admits that this is a POV Fork. His statements,
      • “The new material is well written, it is wikified, and contains four new references. This material was reverted by User:Rjensen. I have restored the enlarged version. It may have a POV, but is improvable. If you want to attack it, start by discussing it here. -- Petri Krohn 10:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I changed my mind; I moved the new material to Southern opposition to Reconstruction. -- Petri Krohn 10:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)”
      • Once every challengable sentence is eliminated (and the originator has shown no sign of providing sources) there will be no article left to improve. Tom (North Shoreman) 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, major POV fork. Much of it is copied word for word from Redemption (United States history). Realkyhick 22:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Allen. It does not discuss any actual Southerners--they seem to have no names and no states and no roles, no articles, no speeches. and of course no sources. it is not useful to readers.Rjensen 01:45, 29 May 2007 (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.