Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to McCarthyism

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 Merge and redirect to McCarthyism. --Deathphoenix 14:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is a minor subdivision of a topic. It contains no unique content, so there's no point in merging it with McCarthyism KarlBunker 16:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with/to McCarthyism. It covers topics that aren't in the main article. Also, it cites references; throwing out referenced work seems like a poor idea, especially since McCarthyism itself boasts zero - that's right, a whopping zero - references. If merge and redirect were impossible, I would vote Keep. -Ikkyu2 22:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Reactions" has a "further readings" section which would be worth merging with McCarthyism (I'll do that shortly). And if there are any facts buried in the jumbled writing of "Reactions" itself I'll merge that too. But there can't be more than a sentence or two that's worth adding to McCarthyism. Since nothing except a Talk page links to "Reactions", there's no need for a redirect, so it seems a "delete" is the simplest action. KarlBunker 23:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• After merging, redirect rather than deleting to preserve the edit history of the material from this page. - squibix 02:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The history of this article, like the article itself, is a content-free meaningless jumble. KarlBunker 02:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the simplest action is not always the best action. Wikipedia:Assume good faith would seem to prohibit the total destruction of edits that were intended in good faith. Reading the article, I find, as you do, that it is not up to Wikipedia:The perfect article standards; and yet it is a referenced, carefully laid-out attempt to describe some phenomena that are external to the McCarthyism article. Others in the future may find content where you find a jumble; a redirect serves your purpose without totally annihilating this possibility. -Ikkyu2 06:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete as original research. Stifle 15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article is referenced extensively. What more do you want? A pony? -Ikkyu2 06:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, fork. Radiant_>|< 09:20, 28 January 2006 (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.