Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glass–Steagall: legislation, limits and loopholes

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 Glass-Steagall legislation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glass–Steagall: legislation, limits and loopholes[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one in a "series" of pages that were split off of Glass-Steagall legislation in 2013; the others are Decline of the Glass–Steagall Act and Aftermath of the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act.

This seems like an unneeded content fork from the main article that was done because the main page had become an excessively long personal dissertation on the Glass-Steagall Act. There's no reason for each of these topics to be covered independent of the main article.

The normal ATD here would be to merge it back into the main article, but this page is rife cleanup-related issues that make that difficult to do. It's WP:BLOATED, appears to be a personal essay on the Glass-Steagall act (WP:NOTESSAY), the citations are a mess, probably because someone deleted sections that were extreme WP:OR and in doing so dropped the full cites (the sources for Wilmarth, Renicke, Benston, Fein, Peach and Perkins are all missing). I think WP:TNT applies. It's not clear to me that any of this is worth salvaging, and it seems it'd be far easier to start from scratch in expanding Glass-Steagall legislation if that page is missing detail. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 07:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and United States of America. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 07:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge necessary contest to the article about the act, but most of this is likely TNT'able anyway Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would draft-ifying be a reasonable AtD here if the goal were to preserve the existing content temporarily outside of main article space so it can be merged in as-appropriate (instead of having something that will later be reintroduced to article space on its own)? My only concern with a merge is that I feel like it will take substantial effort. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. What a confusing set of article names and redirects. (It took me a long time to work out why Glass–Steagall Act redirects to the Glass–Steagall legislation page instead of the 1933 Banking Act page – I understand the logic now but in any case if that is where we are directing all the traffic from searches for "Glass–Steagall Act", then the Glass–Steagall legislation page definitely needs improvement.) Merging this particular sub-article with what is essentially the Glass–Steagall Act page will hopefully trigger a further clean-up of Glass–Steagall legislation, and I agree that much of the content could be deleted anyway. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the history is captured on Talk:Glass–Steagall_Legislation/Series_name, but yeah, I agree with all of this. I'm a bit worried merging it will just make the Glass–Steagall legislation page worse though. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striking previous !vote as upon further consideration, as well as the comments from Dylnuge above and from Dovid below, I think this AfD nomination would be better served as a "Proposed merge" discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Against deleting: I don't think the suitability of Glass-Steagal is up for debate. IIRC, I created the related set of articles, including this one (LLL). At the time, the main article was a hot mess. Due to the complexity of the subject, there were very large sections that were difficult to understand, especially in context to one another, and that makes it difficult to grasp the overall subject due to both length and organization (points of contact between subtopics made for repetitious material). I undertook to create an outline of the overall subject, with enough meat for each section to make it useful in a standalone way, and to create "main articles" for each reduced subtopic. LLL was one of those. I haven't looked at the subject in quite some time, so it may be a mess again, but the breakout was reasonable then, and should in theory be no different now. All of the material could be part of the central G-S article, but it is more appropriate to break it out and but high down the central article. If you disagree about the disability of LLL as a standalone topic, then you would be forced to agree to move all is content back to three central article, and that decreases the treatment of city the main topic and this subtopic. Dovid (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine if this is how consensus turns out; my deletion argument is definitely about the forking being inappropriate and not the notability. But at the same time, this seems like a very good candidate to WP:TNT if there ever were one. I think you're correct that having that much content on a single article is unreadable, and I honestly don't think anyone is going to spend the time making this usable (though maybe I'm wrong). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylnuge Please have a read of WP:ATA, especially the section on WP:SURMOUNTABLE. If you need help with editing the article, you can always canvass the relevant WikiProjects. Or, as I suggested earlier, your best bet may be to pursue this as a Proposed Merge (and notifying all the WikiProjects for input). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with WP:ATA and with the rarity that a TNT-based suggestion gets through, but I stand by the argument I laid out in my nom. I honestly don't see how having this page makes the wiki better. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of WP:TNT...but to me, it cuts both ways – it can be an argument to keep and completely rewrite, or an argument to completely start over from scratch. If any existing text or sourcing information is helpful for the complete rewrite, then by all means keep it in some form, to facilitate the rewrite and not waste time and effort. At the moment, the existing text isn't doing any harm, either. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2023 (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.