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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 06:19Z

1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress[edit]

1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

non notable symbolic "memorial" to Congress asking it to declare the 14th amendment invalid; I see no sign that it received great or lasting notice, except from a small fringe element of conspiracy theorist types (other than several such websites, it gets very few Google hits.) The dispute over the legitimacy of the amendment is covered in the 14th amendment article in some detail. And, of course, the article has been the site of long-running edit wars. Brianyoumans 06:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Would any of this information, if WP:attributed, be a useful addition to articles on the 14th and 15th Amendments of the American constitution? -- saberwyn 09:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. (I'm not sure what "long-running edit wars" there've been). There appears to be little chance this article could be more than a stub. The matter might merit a sentence in the relevant amendment articles, per saberwyn. -Will Beback · † · 09:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • long-running may have been an exaggeration. There has certainly been some back and forth between the special-interest-accounts who created and built the page, and some folks like Famspear and Zantastik below that have tried to clean it up.--Brianyoumans 04:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is a minor incident that most likely will never expand beyond a stub. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I was trying to prod this article just a few days ago, but now I find it to be a rather interesting and worthwhile article on a notable subject. The article is all verifiable in a reliable source at this point and has become much more stable in the last 24-48 hours. I believe it is notable because it is unique--it is uncommon, to say the least, for a state legislature to urge the federal government to repudiate two constitutional amendments (especially ones that had been around for nearly 100 years). This being the case, a simple Google search is not adequate to test notability. Given the context of the civil rights movement's beginnings in the 50s (including the then rather recently decided Brown v. Board of Education), it is indeed remarkable that the Georgia legislature was making a (symbolic) attempt to excise the equal protection clause from the Constitution and even remove the right of African-Americans to vote. I do not believe an adequate ground for deletion based on sound policy/guidelines has been presented thus far, thus I respectfully dissent from those who have commented. If deleted, I hope it will be mentioned in relevant amendment articles per the above. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article has gone from being a long, painful, monumental train wreck consisting almost entirely of fringe, unverifiable, non-neutral, completely erroneous original research to what it now is: a short article that at least has the possibility of development. Assuming that the 1957 Georgia resolution is real (and it appears to be so at this point), I second editor Jersyko's comment that it is "remarkable that the Georgia legislature was making a (symbolic) attempt to excise the equal protection clause from the Constitution and even remove the right of African-Americans to vote." Let's give Wikipedia editors a chance and some time to develop this into something better. Yours, Famspear 15:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article, hitherto dominated by conspiracy theorists and fringe forum posters, can become something quite valuable. It is truly rare for a U.S. state legislature to attempt to repudiate two constitutional amendments (one of which was passed to allow African-Americans to vote). This sort of measure is of much interest to historians of the period, as it is a good example of massive resistance to the U.S. Civil Rights movement. A trip to the microfilm department of a good university library will certainly turn up a plethora of newspaper articles on the measure, both critical and supportive. I'd wager that there are some good law review articles on this matter as well. So I must respectfully disagree with the delete votes on two counts: this topic is certainly notable, both by its rarity and importance as part of massive resistance. Secondly, provided we go offline in our search for sources, we shouldn't have much trouble finding them. (Looking offline, looking in older sources is something we need to do much more of anyway).--Zantastik talk 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I certainly agree that this is historical, and it is part of the history of the resistance to the civil rights movement, but the question is, was it a small part or a large one? I'm not sure anyone took this that seriously at the time, let alone now. Unless this got a lot of attention in 1957, I suspect it is too trivial for its own article. --Brianyoumans 18:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• deleteKeep--reexaming what should be the main articles, they are quite weak & it might be better to build up from articles like this. --Actually, merge into the larger articles, neither of which mention this resolution, though the one on the 14th does mention the controversy. It would just be a reference in larger article--the preset article has nothing much to say. see the larger article for context. Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Controversy over ratification DGG 19:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)DGG 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (changed from "delete" above) - willing to give the article a chance to improve. -Will Beback · † · 06:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable (if stupid) historical event. - Denny 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a very notable (far from "stupid") historical event in the form of a legislative (Georgia Code Annotated) act having passed all the required legal research guidelines before enactment by the State of Georgia, and which has not only been unrefuted for nearly 50 years but is supported by reliable press editorials in various newspapers (e.g., Chattanooga Free Press Editorial Section - March 8, 1995).Burk Hale 00:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been re-edited by the initial editor to further comply with Wikipedia standards and to focus on the notable points of the subject matter (considering that the actual text of the memorial is not allowed to be posted and thereby forces Wikipedia readers to seek external sources for a better understanding of the articles notable import).Burk Hale 03:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reverted the edits; they were poorly sourced and remarkably POV. Also, there is a prominent link to the source text (of which copyright is claimed) in the article. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article shows the purported "copy-righted source" removed. No specific comments, giving standing to claims for POV, have been made on the discussion page. All edits are un-biased and well-sourced. This article is being remarkably scrutinized and abused no matter how well it complies with Wikipedia guidelines.Burk Hale 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did make specific claims regarding POV in the article. I find your removal of the POV tag to be in bad faith and your continued insistence that the article is being "abused" to be uncivil and a violation of WP:OWN. I have posted an RFC on the article to gauge community consensus on this issue. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.