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 Kansas–Nebraska Act. There is a rough consensus not to keep the content as a standalone article. The Delete views have not provided a compelling reason not to merge the content into the proposed target, so this seems to be a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas and Missouri[edit]

Kansas and Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There is no purpose in having a page dedicated to two states with separate pages, nor is there a reason to have a page dedicated to the relationship of two states. NotAMoleMan (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<Missouri>|list of <Missouri>-related deletion discussions]]. NotAMoleMan (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<Kansas>|list of <Kansas>-related deletion discussions]]. NotAMoleMan (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @NotAMoleMan Before I review the notability parts: there was absolutely no reason I can see for you to notify any of the people you've notified besides Red Slash, one of which is indefinitely banned. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry about that, my bad. It was my first time doing this, I'll keep that in mind next time. Thank you for telling me. NotAMoleMan (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is not a random pair of U.S. states. See Kansas–Nebraska Act for context about the historic interactions between these two states related to slavery. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Kansas, and Missouri. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Kansas–Nebraska Act, which is pretty much most of this information. I don't see much else that warrants a standalone article. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd also support a merge to Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry). Aaron Liu (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Kansas–Missouri rivalry, comparable to Rivalry between Cologne and Düsseldorf and California–Texas rivalry. BD2412 T 03:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a good article. Title change is okay if the state names are kept in the title. Sources are reliable, and rich. They can support more discussion of the history of the two states as the US argued about slavery. I have added some more recent references on the continuing competition between the two states. Related articles focus on politics and the past; this article takes the story to the present century. - - Prairieplant (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I still only see stuff related to the Act or sports. I think merging it into the Act's legacy while mentioning the present-day law against financial incentives for pulling from the other Kansas City and stuff would be enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge Civil War-related content would belong at Kansas–Nebraska Act#Aftermath, not here. You could just as easily have an article for any arbitrary combination of states, like Ohio and Michigan which fought a war and also has rival universities. Many other states also have shared metropolitan areas and can be said to compete or cooperate economically. This is really just WP:SYNTH, not a substantively notable topic that requires a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 14:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Reywas92: You have literally just described why an article of this type on Ohio and Michigan would not be arbitrary. Something like Delaware/Idaho or New Hampshire/New Mexico would be arbitrary. BD2412 T 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything resulting from the war can be covered in the war's article. It's not too much. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    But it would be because the war already has an article and the university rivalry is irrelvant. Connecting those doesn't make an encylopedia article. Kansas City metropolitan area can also cover related content. Okay, bordering states aren't as arbitrary as those that don't, but there's New York and New Jersey, Wisconsin and Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia, Oregon and Washington, Florida and Georgia, plenty of others that one could make whatever discussions of a rivalry, historical comparisons, or how their economies are related, but those just aren't articles we need. Reywas92^Talk 00:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Re: New York and New Jersey, Wisconsin and Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia, Oregon and Washington, Florida and Georgia, yes, we actually could make pretty solid articles for all of those. Neighboring states often do involve themselves in rivalries along several dimensions of cultural significance, including athletic bragging rights due to cross-border proximities, and competition for business and natural resources. BD2412 T 02:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Those other articles are wholly legal and political, and not brought to the present. Kansas and Missouri had a major role in the slavery debate and the war, making them a unique pair of states. - - Prairieplant (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems like you could just as easily have Kansas and Nebraska since the Act created both. Any pair of states is unique with some sort of relationship; we already have articles about the role in the war, with no need for this page. Reywas92^Talk 22:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is already well documented elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T·C 23:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Same can go for this article after we merge it. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Kansas–Nebraska Act as per Reywas92, and the small amount of material not related could be merged to the individual states' pages. There is material here worth keeping but we have better articles for that. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we don't really need articles on 2 different similar places or similar topics. What next Jupiter and Saturn. Yes there is some content and sources but it it really appropriate for an article, such content could probably be contrived about many similar topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Crouch, Swale: It wouldn't even be hard to write an article on comparisons between Jupiter and Saturn. Those have been compared by observers for thousands of years. BD2412 T 02:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But we shouldn't. I and other poets have compared the rain to my tears for decades. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The points of comparison between the two largest neighboring gas giants in our planetary system are more than merely poetic. BD2412 T 17:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Does a comparison between Dickens and Hugo warrant an article? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would revolve around whether there are substantial reliable sources specifically comparing and contrasting Dickens to Hugo. By the way, having poked around with the question, I am confident that I could write a killer article on the history of mythological, poetic, and literary metaphors comparing tears to rain. BD2412 T 18:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But there aren't, and there aren't for Kansas and Missouri. Nearly all sources I find online are either encyclopedias or about Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry), which focuses on the sporting context as an extension of the war context. Even so, that article contains most of the background, and the only standalone parts of this article is some OR-y talk about the two Kansas City-s. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Article definitely should not be kept as-is. Would support a rename to Kansas–Missouri rivalry or a redirect to relevant Civil War-era content over deletion, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We already have Bleeding Kansas, this topic is functionally duplicative. SportingFlyer T·C 01:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without Objection to Creating a Completely Different Article There may be a notable topic on a Kansas City, Kansas–Kansas City, Missouri rivalry but the current article has too many problems to salvage: the text lacks details about a potential rivalry (i.e. the actual topic), instead the text wanders into the historical Kansas–Nebraska Act, it's not well named since it's not about whole states, it's not well sourced. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The choices I see are closing this as No consensus or adding another week for relisting and I'm taking that option. Of course the discussion can be closed at any time should a closer see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no need for an article like this. As for the Civil War history, that was adequately covered in its own article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and Reywas. The keep !votes aren't convincing about the point of this article's existence. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2024 (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.