Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temperance organizations
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 of the debate was keep. There also seems to be a desire to merge, so someone may want to take care of that. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Temperance organizations
Page is superfluous now that Category:Temperance organizations has been created, and largely re-hashes material in that category and in Category:Temperance movement.--chris.lawson 04:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Duplicative material per nomination. Jtmichcock 04:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Temperance movement. Capitalistroadster 05:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: If there is a cat tag now, I don't see the utility of a merge, so delete for duplicate material. Geogre 13:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, de-listify, and expand. The fact that a category has been created is not a deletion criteria. Just the opposite, really. I have made this the lead article in the new organizations sub-cat. Marskell 14:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per Marskell CalJW 15:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if the article doesn't provide any useful info not already present in the cat (for example, an unannotated list that cannot be usefully annotated), that is a deletion criterion; it's dupe content. That said, this is useful prose, so merge this into Temperance movement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- A rarely invoked guideline that I present here: Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy. Redundancy is admittedly a merge criteria (not a delete criteria) but this isn't enshrined: lead articles in a cat ought to be somewhat redundant. Here is the subject in manageable chunks within the cat, and here is a lead article that sums them all up. This article should be expanded, not deleted or merged. Marskell 19:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think we're in disagreement, even given that guideline (which I'm not entirely happy with, but for completely unrelated reasons). I think this should be merged into temperance movement because temperance organizations and the temperance movement are the same subject. That guideline suggests duplicating info in separate but related subjects, whereas I see these two articles as covering the same subject. (I wasn't arguing this should be deleted anyway.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- A rarely invoked guideline that I present here: Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy. Redundancy is admittedly a merge criteria (not a delete criteria) but this isn't enshrined: lead articles in a cat ought to be somewhat redundant. Here is the subject in manageable chunks within the cat, and here is a lead article that sums them all up. This article should be expanded, not deleted or merged. Marskell 19:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Temperance movement and redirect. The list/cat argument doesn't do it for me. It's not about the fact that this is a list of sorts. It's about the fact that like information likes to stick together. Jacqui★ 15:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Preferably Keep, otherwise Merge with Temperance movement and redirect. The Temperance movement article is actually not very adequate and I came to this article from that one. There is much more to be said on the movement as a political force. This article should be expanded to show that there was a diversity of organisations within the movement, many with different agendas, even though with the same professed goal. While there was overlap with organisations there was difference too - the Ku Klux Klan and the non-conformist movements (eg Methodists) on the Australian gold fields are not the same. How such disparate groups co-existed and their successes with prohibition and early closing in the early twentieth century would make an interesting article beyond the scope of what is already there and the article on the movement.--A Y Arktos 08:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment -- I certainly wouldn't object to a merge and redirect either, per AYArktos and Jacqui M.--chris.lawson 02:33, 22 November 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.
