Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partition and secession in California

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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 - no argument presented for deletion. As noted in the comments, even if the article is split into two new articles, the history must be retained for attribution. That discussion should occur on the talk page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partition and secession in California[edit]

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

should be split as these are distinct concepts and this page title isn't worth keeping as a WP:DAB entry with two links. A redirect would be WP:XY Prisencolin (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but split and rename. I don't think this is the scope of AFD. I think you want WP:SPLIT. You certainly could not delete the article if the intent is to split it; that would lose the attributions in the history that are required by the Creative Commmons licensing model. TJRC (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly notable. The split as per TJRC, and follow the instructions there so that history can be maintained. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't see a point of splitting. While I know they're different ideas, but have few things in common that these proposals 1) try to change the current situation of under-representation, 2) likely require some kind of statewide ballot initiative, 3) likely require approval from U.S. Congress. Nobody here is suggesting using violence or civil war to achieve the goal (which has happened in some other countries), which would have set those advocates apart from others. Acnetj (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One involves separating from the U.S., the other remaining in the U.S. but subdivided. It's been pretty well-settled since the last attempt that secession is not allowed for in the Constitution, whereas subdivision clearly is, and has been done before (giving rise to Maine, and then later West Virginia, although that last one was a little bit iffy). This strikes me as a pretty big difference, enough to make them separate topics and justifying a split.

But again, this really isn't the forum to try to determine the merits of splitting. TJRC (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My original point is that these proposals may involve very different outcomes but have a lot more in common (the reason for them, the process necessary to get it going, etc) than apart. I think splitting the articles depending on the outcomes of these plans don't really give a complete picture than if they're combined like this page. Acnetj (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There hasn't been much if any major reorganization of government structure in modern times for modern, well developed economies like in California (it is the 5th largest). So whatever history US had with partition and secession won't completely apply here. Acnetj (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2018 (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.