Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of citizenship in the United States

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. I'll be glad to userfy/incubate this if someone thinks they can fix it up. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of citizenship in the United States[edit]

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

Article WP:SYNTH and is a personal essay reproduced by author on blog. No way to make it encyclopedic without complete rewrite. Coffeepusher (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generally agree it should probably be deleted. I created this article perhaps a year and a half ago; the original article has been whittled down to incomprehensibility (now it begins with the 20th century?) for concerns about WP:OR and WP:NPOV for which there may be some justifiable claims. It may be the kind of subject that Wikipedia can't handle? My public domain Google knol version (in my view) is excellent and getting better. It explores how citizenship changed from the 1700s to today -- from active participation in local government, attending town meetings, shuffling local government jobs, to today where few Americans participate in politics, only half vote for president every four years, few know the names of their congresspersons, making citizenship into a legal marker of membership, although the citizenship franchise expanded. So, perhaps deletion seems sensible. Regardless, people interested in American politics (most Americans aren't) can read my knol, if interested.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, else Userfy. If it needs a rewrite then tag it with {{rewrite}}. Seems a damn shame to delete this. It's suitably well-referenced and has much informative content. And, yes it's definitely a subject Wikipedia can and should handle. -- œ ^™ 14:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hey OlEnglish, I appreciate your response here. I think you're one of the few people who value things like citizenship & history of it as a topic. If the article survives I'll try to fix it up, possibly; I had concluded earlier that it wasn't worth fixing if I had to deal with other users chopping out whole sections. I still think Americans don't care about citizenship much today, which is too bad, but that's how it is; as a result, anybody trying to write about this topic will come under fire for broaching the topic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete the probelms are too many--the author is uninformed about the history of citizenship and has loaded the article with strange and irrelevent stuffing. EG: lots of strange ill-informed notions about New England town meetings for example; misunderstanding of voting and military service. He always ASSUMES what the past was like, with zero history RS. It's a personal statement that will work much better outside Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I stand by my thinking that's in my knol. I object to having my thoughts painted as "strange" or "ill-informed" or having "zero history" knowledge. I find professor Jensen's comment to be borderline insulting and dismissive. I personally challenge professor Jensen to debate me on this subject. It would be an instructive lesson for him to get his egotistical rear-end wholloped by me, a handyman, in a public forum; but then he might not be able to get a position at such a prestigious bastion of higher education -- Montana State University -- but would have to beg for a job teaching history to fifth graders. I came across one of his books -- not much there. I caught Jensen self-promoting here. Maybe Jensen's contributions throughout Wikipedia might be more thoroughly examined to look for more instances of self-promotion?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure this can be salvaged as it is more of an academic discussion than a set of facts to be recorded by Wikipedia for posterity. The discussion is fascinating though for those who know a little about the politics of social allocation. MLA (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear subject: the article sprawls over a variety of topics. Some of the material might be moved to other articles, but the existing article would need to start almost from scratch. I don't think an article at this title should be recreated. New articles on this general field should have better defined topics. Will Beback talk 22:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure original research Kuguar03 (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Terrible amalgam of original essays, encyclopedia-worthy topic. Blowing it up without prejudice towards recreation wouldn't be a bad outcome. Carrite (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2011 (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.