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 Merge to Field artillery in the American Civil War. Page will be linked to on the talk page of the target. The Placebo Effect 01:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artillery Advantages the North had in the American Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

deletion nom Prod was removed without comment. This article is not an encyclopedia article. It reads like someone's term paper. Even the title seems to indicate as such. Possible WP:OR as well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- saveable, even if bad POV and formatting.JJJ999 06:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - noticable topic that deserves some attention, though perhaps not under current title. --Martin Wisse 07:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article reads like an essay written by a junior high school student. If someone can somehow improve this article, I'd be happy to change my stance, but I currently see the article as hopelessly unsalvageable. Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - salvageable Przepla 12:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the subject definitely seems noteworthy to me, and there are several sources mentioned. — Ksero 15:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merely having sources does not make this article keepable. This article may warrent a section in the American Civil War article, but just look at the title? Wikipedia is not a publishing service for your thesis paper. Its an encyclopedia... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article states, "I believe the Union’s ability to inflict a much higher percentage of casualties is directly related to their ability to manufacture much more accurate weapons, and in greater quantities." In other words, the claim of notability made for "Artillery Advantages the North had" depends on the article author's own opinion. Differences between Northern and Southern equipment can be treated at Field artillery in the American Civil War, but but there's no need to preserve this original research essay. EALacey 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything salvageable to Field artillery in the American Civil War. People talk about improving articles during Afd, but it rarely happens. I know because I do it too. Katr67 20:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary article and not suitable for Wikipedia.--Bedivere 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Katr67. Most of it is WP:OR. The only thing I can see worth saving is the time it took to field comparable artillery pieces. Clarityfiend 23:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Katr67. Torc2 00:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rename Either merge or rename to compariosn of civil war artillery and then clean up foreverDEAD 00:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Merging and redirecting seems reasonable, given that an appropriately titled and written article already exists and covers the exact same information. There ARE a few good sources in this article, and there may be a nugget or two of good information in it that could be used in the Field artillery in the American Civil War article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Katr67. Cleaned up, this could make a good subheading in Field artillery in the American Civil War. Thatcher131 01:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, clean up, rm WP:OR per Katr67 & others Carlossuarez46 04:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - there is already an article on the basic topic (Field artillery in the American Civil War). Redirect is pointless. Springnuts 20:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep salvageable; rename and heavily edit. JJL 13:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs a few cleanup tags is all. Viperix 20:54, 24 October 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.