Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massachusetts compromise

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 of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Massachusetts compromise

Now, I'm no expert on nineteenth century United States history, but I'm thinking this one's a hoax. CDC (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; hoax. Antandrus (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Nice work! Antandrus (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete; hoax. There is a real Massachusetts Compromisein U.S. history. Federalists wanted an up-or-down vote on the Constitution w/out changes; Antifederalists wanted the Bill of Rights added first.

Under the Massachusetts compromise, the delegates recommended amendments to be considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into effect.

The Massachusetts compromise determined the fate of the Constitution, as it permitted delegates with doubts to vote for it in the hope that it would be amended.

Billbrock 01:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep as rewritten. Billbrock 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Possible speedy delete as silly vandalism unless it were to be rewritten as Bill Brock states. Well done to Bill Brock for the rewrite.Capitalistroadster 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Capitalistroadster 02:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Googling suggests that referring to this as "(T)he Massachusetts (C)ompromise" is nonstandard. (The counterexamples come from student flashcards--not very authoritative.) Also, the Connecticut Compromise aka the Great Compromise offers competition.  :-) So I suggest a speedy. Billbrock 02:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As someone who is a little more familiar with Massachusetts and early 19th Century American History (although not much). I'm going to go right ahead and say that this is patent nonsense. DeathThoreau 03:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep I like the new revisions, it's much more, about something that actually happened. DeathThoreau 23:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (I don't see a CSD for hoaxes) Jamie 07:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Jamie 03:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In my view, hoaxes are covered by the "Silly vandalism" category of Wikipedia:Vandalism "Silly vandalism:Users will sometimes create joke articles or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or add silly jokes to existing articles (this includes Mr. Pelican Shit.) A better place for content that is intentionally of a joking or nonsensical nature is the Uncyclopedia or WP:BJAODN." An article that was intentionally false from the time of creation and has no accurate versions in its history can be speedied as silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 09:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So you'd like to incude it under CSD G3; but that's a stretch. Perhaps the G3 criteria should be expanded to explicitly allow this. I wouldn't mind seeing this kind of junk speedied, but my point was: We shouldn't stretch the WP:CSD rules too much, rather they should be simple and staightforward so the closing admin can do the job speedily... Jamie 09:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert either. Can someone explain why you lot consider this a hoax? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no verifiable evidence of such a thing happening. The idea that the Massachussetts militia and post office in that state having a dispute over uniforms requiring Federal Government intervention is rather implausible. Capitalistroadster 17:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a play on the Missouri compromise where Maine and Massachusetts became separate states. Durova 17:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• delete hoax EdwinHJ | Talk 18:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and rewrite per Billbrock. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after rewrite by TMS63112. Nice job. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Re-wrote former hoax article per research by Billbrock. --TMS63112 17:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite. I changed the "External Links" header to say "Reference" as the link was used to write the current article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Massachusetts Compromise (capital C) ... the Missouri Compromise's C is capitalized, why shouldn't this one? IanManka 05:17, 19 December 2005 (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.