- 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. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 21:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Gerrymandering in the United States
- Gerrymandering in the United States ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
By the creator's admission, is a copy of Gerrymandering, with some added material. This should be added to Gerrymandering if appropriate. Imaginatorium ( talk) 13:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see any of the deletion criteria being applicable to this article, nor does the nominator posit any. Volumes of material have been written about gerrymandering specifically in the United States, and information specific to the United States was taking up a disproportionately large amount of space on the main Gerrymandering article (see revision 599966762). The main article is sizable; before moving out some of the U.S.-related material, its readable prose size was large (per WP:PAGESIZE) at 67kb. Gerrymandering in the United States is an appropriate spinoff article that was created in line with Wikipedia's guideline on summary style and WP:SPLIT. If the main article encompassed everything related to gerrymandering in the United States—the history, relevant federal and state legislation, relevant court cases, the several different types, legal and political remedies—it would be unbearably large and slanted toward the United States content. The reason I "admitted" to copying material from Gerrymandering was to give proper attribution when copying material from one article to another, which is a permitted practice (with attribution required by WP:COPYWITHIN). Even still, the new article is not a duplicate of its parent by any means; I've added a large amount of new material and sources that were completely missing from the main article—including info on bipartisan gerrymandering, racial gerrymandering, the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering, and alternative voting systems—and I've rewritten much of the old. As I mentioned, volumes of material have been written about gerrymandering specific to the United States, certainly enough for the topic to merit its own article per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SUMMARY, and I plan to continue to work to expand and refine the article with any other editors who may wish to participate. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 16:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Reading through the article, there are plenty of notable sources and I know that the subject has gotten a good deal of government and lobbying attention. Also, there is much more notable information in this article than what can be placed within the gerrymandering article, so a merge is not a good solution. (There is some content copied over, but a lot of the information looks original from the gerrymandering article). The article may need a bit of clean up and some additional research, but the subject is notable and I don't see a reason to delete. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason(s) given for deletion. Its creation appears to have been done properly. Bearian ( talk) 17:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. A more-than-valid spin-off. Orser67 ( talk) 21:50, 18 March 2014 (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.
- 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. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 21:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Gerrymandering in the United States
- Gerrymandering in the United States ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
By the creator's admission, is a copy of Gerrymandering, with some added material. This should be added to Gerrymandering if appropriate. Imaginatorium ( talk) 13:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see any of the deletion criteria being applicable to this article, nor does the nominator posit any. Volumes of material have been written about gerrymandering specifically in the United States, and information specific to the United States was taking up a disproportionately large amount of space on the main Gerrymandering article (see revision 599966762). The main article is sizable; before moving out some of the U.S.-related material, its readable prose size was large (per WP:PAGESIZE) at 67kb. Gerrymandering in the United States is an appropriate spinoff article that was created in line with Wikipedia's guideline on summary style and WP:SPLIT. If the main article encompassed everything related to gerrymandering in the United States—the history, relevant federal and state legislation, relevant court cases, the several different types, legal and political remedies—it would be unbearably large and slanted toward the United States content. The reason I "admitted" to copying material from Gerrymandering was to give proper attribution when copying material from one article to another, which is a permitted practice (with attribution required by WP:COPYWITHIN). Even still, the new article is not a duplicate of its parent by any means; I've added a large amount of new material and sources that were completely missing from the main article—including info on bipartisan gerrymandering, racial gerrymandering, the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering, and alternative voting systems—and I've rewritten much of the old. As I mentioned, volumes of material have been written about gerrymandering specific to the United States, certainly enough for the topic to merit its own article per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SUMMARY, and I plan to continue to work to expand and refine the article with any other editors who may wish to participate. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 16:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Reading through the article, there are plenty of notable sources and I know that the subject has gotten a good deal of government and lobbying attention. Also, there is much more notable information in this article than what can be placed within the gerrymandering article, so a merge is not a good solution. (There is some content copied over, but a lot of the information looks original from the gerrymandering article). The article may need a bit of clean up and some additional research, but the subject is notable and I don't see a reason to delete. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason(s) given for deletion. Its creation appears to have been done properly. Bearian ( talk) 17:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. A more-than-valid spin-off. Orser67 ( talk) 21:50, 18 March 2014 (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.