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 delete. W.marsh 17:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of California 1800s to mid 1900s[edit]

Culture of California 1800s to mid 1900s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Delete, though merge useable content into other articles where appropriate. This article is clearly a fork from Culture of California, which is clearly revealed by looking at the edit history of the two articles. This article has no main subject, its connection to the subject stated in the title is tenuous, nor is there a valid reason for forking this article off from the main Culture of California article. (Amazingly, this article was submitted to peer review with the goal of making it a Feature Article!) Peter G Werner 09:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merger and deletion are mutualy incompatible. Either you want the content merged, in which case you want it retained, not deleted; or you want the content deleted, in which case you don't want it retained in any article. Please pick one. Uncle G 13:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then. Basically, the article uses as its starting point material that was deleted out of Culture of California for good reason. However, if somebody can make the case that an AfM is a better move than an AfD, I wouldn't necessarily be against the former. Peter G Werner 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pretty much covers what is in Culture of California, or History of California, although I find it hard to beleive that none of the content of this article can be merged into another more suitable article. Agent 86 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well if you don't want something that's already been said in Cultur of Cailifornia to be merged only one thing to do with it Johntomlin 23:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge please can you merge the articles. I worked very hard on the article, so thy delete. I agree that much of the ninfo is in other articles. Please! at least merge edit? Showmanship is the key 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You know, you could always save the latest copy this article to your userspace so you don't lose your work. You can then put some of the material back in to Culture of California. However, I don't think most of it should be merged back in, because much of it simply doesn't have anything to do with that topic. "Culture of California" does not mean "Every random thing I can think of about California". Peter G Werner 04:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Both articles are disorganized messes that require major weed-whacking and reorganization before they can become good encyclopedia overview articles. Use the recent major cleanup of the California article done mostly by user:NorCalHistory as an example. ^BlankVerse 14:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Response When or if the article is deleted I will merge informatiion. It just caught me some weeks ago that too much of the information in this article was unneccessary or disorganized I plan this to be a longer article on California culture, but I did not know what exactly to write. All of you are write, alot of ibformation has nothing to do with the title or California culture. Ninety percent of the article is stated in other articles and there's no plot for the article. Some of the information can be merged again, but the article is a mish-mesh of facts, that explains almost nothing or nothing new so this can't be featured. One thing is that some sections in the article I think belong but their are probably other California articles for them. This article pretty much does not belong in wikipedia. Showmanship is the key 01:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I find myself doing when I want to reorganize something on the Wikipedia, is that I look for something similar that was done well. British African-Caribbean community is a Featured article, and about a third of the article is devoted to "African-Caribbean culture in the United Kingdom". You might use that as a guideline for rewriting the Culture of California article.

Just as one example of problems: The abysmal coverage of California literture in both articles. Where is the mention of Richard Henry Dana, Jr., Mark Twain, and John Muir, for a random selection of early writers about California, and then Kim Stanley Robinson, Philip K. Dick, and Walter Mosley, for another haphazard list of later California writers. ^BlankVerse 03:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Regretfully, Delete. This is one of those times when starting fresh is going to be much easier that trying to fix. I could see someone starting a new article with a few pieces of this. NorCalHistory 03:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is hard to see how content from this article could be merged into the parent article. It might be better to start Culture of California from scratch, based on a good model if there is one, and mine archived versions of both for the usable bits. Since none of the problems with either article seem to result from bad faith, perhaps this could be moved to Talk:Culture of California/1800s to mid 1900s archive, with an invitation to look at it as a resource.--Hjal 05:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a mess. The first paragraph starts at the annexation of California to the United States. Which does not fit the article title makings its start in the 1800s (1800 - 1809). Still within the introduction the subject jumps from the California Gold Rush to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965? Only then makes a reference to the "galleons of Spain" and then moves immediately to the Attack on Pearl Harbor, followed in the text by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake? Not to mention Hollywood, Los Angeles, California and the film industry mentioned it the same paragraph. User:Dimadick

• Delete (And this from a hardcore inclusionist.) To me, the article seems a complete pig's breakfast. Take it from public view quickly, before it harms some innocent. Any useful bits in it can be saved in editors' sandboxes and then reintegrated into other articles—preferably articles to which the bits have some actual relationship. For what it's worth, I'm sure that Alfred Hilcock would agree with me. Whyaduck 13:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is very little salvageable in this article, and I've been concerned about the extensive content taken from single sources since I first encountered this article at WP:LoCE. Starting over is better than attempting a merge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 27 January 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.