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 parent article. It's clear there is a strong consensus for deleting these pages, and the keep votes were not able to counteract that. I am, however, cognisant of the amount of effort that was devoted to these pages, and will hence close as 'merge to parent article: eg 'Outline of [State]', so that any useful material can be saved. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Louisiana history

[edit]

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

I am nominating almost all of the Outline of U.S._State_Name history articles for deletion. (Outline of Texas history was deleted over the weekend after an AfD discussion.) These articles are not truly outlines of the history of each state, but outlines of the Wikipedia coverage of the history of each state. Wikipedia's coverage is neither complete nor noteworthy; the article titles are very misleading.

They appear to full of WP:Original research; in many cases irrelevant links are included based on the personal interpretation of the wikipedia editor(s) who created this, regardless of whether those topics would be included in an actual book on the subject. (As a minor example, a history of the U.S. state of Louisiana would likely not include information on Los Adaes-the first capital of Texas-, which is linked in Outline of Louisiana history).

The applicable links contain no context, and without context a history article can quickly slip into WP:NPOV. (Using Louisiana again, including a link to Spanish Texas supports the French perspective that Texas was part of Louisiana; the Spanish did not hold this opinion.) Even if this is not NPOV at this time, it is incredibly confusing; as a reader I have no idea how half of these links/topics are associated with the overall topic and would have to click every wikilink to figure it out.

If the links were trimmed to contain only that that were applicable, and if the appropriate context were added to make sure that they were NPOV and not confusing, these articles would essentially be stripped down versions of the articles History of U.S._State_Name. That makes these outlines content forks. The table of contents of the History of U.S._State_Name article should make a good overview of the topic, and readers are welcome to follow main or further templates at each section to find out more.

Furthermore, as they exist these articles are essentially outlines of outlines. The Outline of U.S._State_Name articles already contain history sections with outlines of the history.

I don't believe these articles can be salvaged into anything approaching a comprehensive, useful, neutral, article that is not a content fork, and as such I think they should be deleted. Karanacs (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Karanacs (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some of these articles are useful, are widely used, and should not be summarily mass-deleted in one lump. I'm not even sure nominating so many articles for mass deletion is appropriate procedure. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion nominations are preferred when the articles are similar. Can you please address the points in the nomination (WP:OR, lack of notability, WP:POV, and WP:FORK), or elaborate on what makes these useful? Karanacs (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Are preferred"? Not by me, they're not. On whose behalf are you "appealing to authority"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic conversation continued at User_talk:Til_Eulenspiegel. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all As a matter of principle, I think that all of these need to be merged back to the "Outline of ______". In this case, a mass nomination is appropriate, because a random sampling suggests think that these have been created in the same manner, which was to take the section of one outline, and then use that as a template for creating what strikes me as an outline of an outline. To the extent that any of these contain some relevant information that isn't in the parent article, then the parent article can and should be improved by the addition of that information. In addition, since this could be viewed as a suggested rewriting of each "History of ______" article, perhaps those could (perhaps) from the placement of some of these entries as headings for sections. To me, however, it seems to defeat the purpose of the outline project if an outline article no longer provides all of the relevant information at a glance. And to me, if the "History of Louisiana" (or any other state) needs to be improved upon, then it should be improved upon. Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The outline project has no consensus for any of its activities, and one of their main goals has been the disruption of wikipedia recently. These articles are poorly thought out and executed. It would be better, after looking at a sample, to restart from a clean slate. Verbal chat
Delete I agree with the nominator that these articles are neither complete nor noteworthy, and that the entirety of the "Outline" section lacks a strong justification for inclusion in Mainspace. There is no criteria that informs editors what should be included in the Outline, and how the outline should be grouped. To the extent the article becomes a valid use of mainspace, it is little more than History of Louisiana. As it stands, Outlines are not compliant with How We Do Things Here. Appropriate locations for the synthesis that is the Outline project is Wikiversity, which I am positive would be overjoyed to host all of these (OR is permitted at Wikiversity). Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Merge is second choice to prevent the dreaded 5keep 6merge 4delete = no consensus close, I should note that I prefer merging to keeping in the current state, as merged there are less outlines to check for redonculous changes. Hipocrite (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (Outline of x history --> Outline of x) - This has been discussed at depth for the last few weeks, if outlines are to be deleted, we need a central discussion/RfC, not AfD. As for the WP:FORK, the issue is countered here. On the other hand, I feel that state history outlines may be a bit too much to keep (WP:NOTABILITY). If that is the case then maybe these should be merged with Outline of Louisiana etc. Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had actually suggested an RfC before, but User:The Transhumanist, who has been the chief cheerleader of the project, recommended that instead the articles be discussed at AfD [1]. Karanacs (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC) I am also not suggesting here that all outlines need to be deleted; just these, and for reasons that may apply only to history articles. Just as an RfC is unneeded to delete a specific "regular" article or list, neither should an RfC be needed to deleted a specific "outline". Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Move to project space/Delete Incomplete, non-notable, lists without justification for existing in mainspace. I agree with tall the problems noted by the nominator. Without some context, which they lack, they are a NOTE, NPOV, FORK, and OR mess. Despite the the activities of outline project members this format and style has not achieved anything approaching consensus, and these are poor examples of wikipedia articles. They should all be deleted or moved to project space where project members could work on them and establish some consensus for what to do with them (many of those pro-outline seem to favour their own space "outline" space). Remove from mainspace and centrally decide what to do with this project. Highfields essay doesn't address any of these concerns. Verbal chat 20:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you bothered reading it it deals with WP:FORK in detail but I won't argue with you. Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't deal with the problem at all. Verbal chat 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does, it clearly says what we have outlines in addition to and why Highfields (talk, contribs) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- They should be moved to project space until some form of consensus for their existence in mainspace is established, such as the RfC others say we should wait for. They are not valid articles per all the concerns above.Verbal chat 21:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is to be an RfC, then surely maintaining the status quo would be better until there is an outcome? Highfields (talk, contribs) 21:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal, you voted twice - please strike one of your votes. Thank you. The Transhumanist 02:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have only !voted once, and wikipedia does not work on voting, which you have been told repeatedly. Verbal chat 05:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to respective parent outlines - I'm generally a supporter of the outlines project, and I do think an RfC is needed before we start deleting the main outlines, but merging these to their respective parent outlines seems an uncontroversial and reasonable solution for now. These are simply redundant and unnecessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you mean Outline of x history --> Outline of x, if so then I probably agree Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per Juliancolton. These are not true "outlines", but merely a series of what ought to be hatnotes within the respective History of X State articles. NW (Talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~, or merge each one~~ ~~into the corresponding parent (state) outline (as each of those have a history branch).~~ - Note that the rationale for the deletion nomination is faulty, as the word "Outline" in the titles refers to the type of list these are, not the subject of each list. It is normal for lists to have a list-type designator in their titles or path names - it is common practice; thus we have:
- Glossary of architecture
- Index of architecture articles
- Outline of architecture
- Timeline of architecture
- Portal:Architecture/Topics
- Category:Architecture
- and Table of years in architecture

Even the titular phrase "List of" is an article type designator - almost every list on Wikipedia is an article in list format and not an article for which the subject is a list (such as a list published under that title that's out there on sale at a book store for instance). So we also have:

"List of architecture whatever"
- List of architecture prizes
- List of architecture firms
- List of architecture magazines
"List of whatever architecture"
- List of Baroque architecture
- List of Gothic architecture
- List of Romanesque architecture

And even though a list may include only links to articles, the scope isn't limited to such and is subject to expansion (with topics that aren't yet articles) at any time by any editor. Just because a list is an article list, it doesn't mean it isn't a topic list at the same time! (Although probably incomplete - but incompleteness isn't a valid argument for deletion either, as every article on Wikipedia is a work-in-progress). The Transhumanist 22:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not discussing architecture, but outline of <US state name> history. Please don't construct straw man arguments. Karanacs (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and don't upmerge to "Outline of State" since I hate the whole premise of these outline "articles" per "That's not how we do things around here". Our category system is perfectly useful. If moved to project space, please please please get the related state WikiProjects on board for clean up and expansion, they will know much better what should go in each outline. Katr67 (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Love the Outlines in general but I'm not sure state history outlines are necessary. They can easily be merged into their parent "Outline of X" state articles. Nothing lost. And if one gets too big later on, it can be spun off as well. For now though, the main outline articles seems to be able to accomodate them. Tiamut^talk 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination is based on a misinterpretation: All these outlines are part of the hierarchical outline of knowledge navigation scheme, they are not "normal articles" as the nominator assumed. Great and active efforts are currently made to distinguish navigational outlines from normal articles, e.g. by using a prominent header template to prevent such misunderstandings in the future. Minor mistakes are no reason whatsoever to delete outlines, this is a wiki and mistakes can easily be corrected. I have no opinion about the usefulness of this particular class of history outlines, but the appropriate place to discuss these issues is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge (or the individual talk pages).
I would also like to point out that (in sharp contrast to what some users have suggested above), the WikiProject Outline of Knowledge has a wide support on Wikipedia. It creates and maintains one of the main (and arguably the most user friendly) navigation scheme on Wikipedia which is prominently linked to from the main Wikipedia sidebar (second link from the top!) Cacycle (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No way! Sorry, but this is not a part of a hierarchical naviagation scheme. At first glance, it might look like there's an "official" endorsement of all these historical outlines of the 50 states, but what's clear is (a) The "history" section of the hierarchy is the only one that contemplates "regional" outlines (on the other hand, in the Geography section, when you click on "Alabama", you go straight to "Outline of Alabama" and (b) The idea that these 50 articles are part of some master plan is ludicrous. "History, by region" seems to stop at these 50 articles. Strange that I can find historical outlines for Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, etc.--- but not for places like Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia, etc. (c) The "history" part of the hierarchy is so "All-American", there ought to be a picture of the Stars and Stripes thrown in there. Anybody can look at this and see that this is not what Wikipedia is all about. Mandsford (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice if we could complete such a project overnight, but reality prevents it. Throughout Wikipedia, individual editors develop articles of subjects that interest them. It is no different with the OOK. What are we supposed to do, force them to work on things in a specific order? That's not wiki-like. This is a work-in-progress and is incomplete. I'm sorry we're not developing it fast enough for you. The Transhumanist 01:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added the new outline header template and infobox to this article. These templates clearly distinguish outlines from normal articles and provide the hierarchical outline context. Cacycle (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That template violates several Wikipedia policies. We should never ever be linking to project space from article space. If we need to do that, then these "articles" should be placed in project space. Karanacs (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The namespace for outlines has been discussed extensively, past discussions are linked to from WP:OOKDISC. Cacycle (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate place to discuss articles that should be deleted is here, not a wikiproject talk page. Karanacs (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cacycle said it nicely. Also adding on to him, if a subject is inadequately represented in Wikipedia, outlines provide the job of displaying redlinks to link to these unfinished parts to and assist in their creation. -- penubag (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that there are plans to mention every region in the entire world in that little hierarchy? I don't think so. Mandsford (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to those who want to merge into the main outline article for each state. That solves the problem of having articles that are full of OR and NPOV but moves all of the OR and NPOV stuff to sections of other articles. This is not good practice. Karanacs (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I find these outlines (we're talking about a specific bunch) to be redundant and useless; the contents mainly exist of rather arbitrary lists of events. Nom makes a cogent argument for deletion as opposed to merge. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge into the Outline of State articles. (I think better not, since these can serve as expansions both for the States scheme and the history scheme), . I don't myself work on the Outline of Knowledge scheme, or use it, but every possible organizational device that people are willing to support in Wikipedia should be encouraged. (After keeping, we can resurrect the Texas article, which does not seem to have been adequately noticed.) I don;t see how this is misleadingly official, or POV. That these are major events in the history of each state is not really all that doubtful, and if ones should be subtracted or added it's easy enough to do that. Any individual disputed sequencing or identification can be discussed at the talk page. It's nonsensical to delete a major series of navigational articles because some of them need editing. Probably every one of the articles in the encyclopedia needs some editing. That we only have them for the US states is also an criticism I do not understand--the response is to make them for other countries too. If the people interested in American history made these, the people interested in other areas should do likewise. That we have not yet done everything necessary is no reason to throw out what we do have. As for confusing titles, anyone who goes to the article will see easily enough the nature of it, and Karnac's templates help considerably--and I fail to see how anyone who thinks the title relevant in any possible meaning will not be helped by the contents. To delete an article because of POV needs a showing that the POV is inescapable, and considering the topics we manage to write reasonably NPOV articles on, we can handle these. There will always be some disagreement about what to include in a group, but that doesn't mean that grouping articles is useless. I do not see any OR problems, not any more than in assigning categories. That involves judgment also. We use judgment in organizing the encyclopedia. The basic problem, of saying what events belong in what states and arranging them chronological, is just the assemblage of obvious information. I challenge Drmies: find an article more than half the content you can dispute. (we might do that on the talk p. here). Actually, if this is to be a group deletion, I should be challenging him to do that for every one of the articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I am not sure I can accept the challenge, since I am not sure exactly what you mean--do you care to explain? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say " the contents mainly exist of rather arbitrary lists of events" I challenge you to find an article where more than half the content is inaproriate listings of arbitrary events DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole lot The whole OOK project needs a long hard look at and there doesnt appear to be any academic basis on which the articles are based Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)*Delete per nom. There is definitely a lot of controversary over these and I've been doing reading to try to understand all POV. It's nice to see some of the discussions in one place at least. As for the outlines being listed on the sidebar, if I am correct, Transhumanist put it there around 1/09 replacing something else that was there. It's hard to keep up with a lot of this because changes are being done by a selected group and I can't seem to find any place where a wide group of editors have been discussing these. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as blantant WP:CFORKs. --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote from merge to delete all Since it has come to light that there is a master plan to have both a "history of" and a "historical outline of" article for every state and province in the entire world, this is even more ridiculous than I had first imagined. Folks, feel free to think of "Outline of Louisiana" and the other state outlines as articles that you have a right to edit. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These "articles" are inherently broken and can the history of state topic is better covered by the actual history of state articles...Spiesr (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure what purpose these outline articles are serving, and as others have mentioned, the individual state history articles tell a lot more. For example, Outline of Minnesota history doesn't mention anything about Fort Snelling, Saint Anthony Falls, the Mesabi Range, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, Hubert H. Humphrey, or other important topics. Outline of Iowa history, by contrast, is a little better, but I'm still not convinced that the "outline" organizational structure is useful when compared to individual state history articles, existing categories by state, or other organizational schemes within Wikipedia. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least Merge into Outline of States. A case of WP:DEMOLISH if ever there was one. Deletion nomination and most deletion supports here are based on a misunderstanding or at least lack of awareness of the role these outlines will play within a coherent navigation system. Considering the amount of effort these have taken and the lack of any demonstrable obstacle to the proper functioning of the encyclopedia, an RfC would be much more appropriate forum to address user concerns. mikaul^talk 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I understand what role it would play in an unwanted and unnecessary navigation system...Spiesr (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And let's be really clear on this, since this is the second comment I've read that implies that only a select few people know what's best for Wikipedia. All navigational aids-- whether they are in categories, or templates, or in this case, in the form of an article-- are subject to deletion review, and there is no inherent superiority for an outline as a form of navigation. In the case of navigational articles, some are in the form of lists, some are disambiguation pages, and some are outlines. What does the hierarchical organization of an outline represent? "Hierarchical organization" sounds very important, but is it the product of a council of wise elders? No, as with nearly anything else on Wikipedia, it starts with one person having an idea about how information should be arranged and then putting it into action, at the risk of disapproval by the community. I think that the amount of effort put into these is grossly exaggerated--- compare any "outline of ____ (Alabama, Alaska, etc.)" history to its parent article "outline of _____ (Alabama, Alaska, etc.)" and see what I mean. I think that the consensus is that most people do not like the direction that this project is taking; and most see no reason why this information can't have been placed into the original outline articles. No, I think everyone here has a good grasp of how an encyclopedia should function. Mandsford (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possible merge. I see 2 arguments for deletion. 1) They are not perfect. So edit them! 2) They break policy, e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:FORK, WP:OR, WP:NOTABILITY. I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF but will bring it up anyway, if you are offended by that just stop reading. There are a number of policis that can be used against outlines today, but there are also a number of accepted pages that break these same polices, with our without policies that allows those exception. See e.g. WP:DPAGES for notability. As many above have stated any navigational system should be encouraged, I agree to that and therefore to keep these outlines, and maybe some policies has to be adjusted, then lets discuss that and adjust them. --Stefan ^talk 00:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They break policy is actually a pretty good argument for deletion. I think this is more of a case that some editors believe them thar articles called "Outline of Alabama", "Outline of Alaska" are not perfect... "so edit them"! Mandsford (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep\merge I am torn on this, because I agree in large part with nominators statements regarding the quality of these articles. However, it was my impression they were sub articles of their associated outline, like Outline of Indiana. It was also my impression that the purpose of these articles was to help build a site map for wikipedia, not actually produce articles of any quality. I think the best thing is is for clarity to come on the site map issue. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT. This amateurish, childish, utopian and pointless group of forks (together with the whole "outline" series) is about what one set of Wikipedia users find really important about a topic; I trust our readers will be able to discern that from actual articles, not distillations thereof. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate on which section of WP:NOT specifically you are referring to. I could not find anything that relates to these outlines. Cacycle (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These, like all other "outline" articles, are ridiculous POV forks - they group whatever some editors found "important", and establish an absurd precedent. You've all seen this fallacy at work in the past: "don't read that article, it's too difficult; read my 'summary', until it too gets too difficult to read, then we'll start a summary of a summary of a summary". Bear in mid that articles such as, say, History of Louisiana are already distilled from the topics they cover. Dahn (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Notable and there are some references to (a least enough to establish that Louisiana does have a history). See Transhumanist above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, excuse me, but have you seen History of Louisiana? I think it does the job of "establishing that Louisiana does have a history". Dahn (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some history articles are even more developed, like History of Indiana and History of Minnesotta. But these outline articles are driven from Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge, right? And are sub, sub, sub.... sub article of that are intended to serve as a site map. Not an informative article and not leave anything out, but to be all inclusive. (which to me seems to be redundant with categories) but if we are going to attack these pages as useles in the sense that we are, I think the root cause should be addressed. I have brought this thread to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into the broader outlines for the respective states (i.e. Outline of Louisiana history to Outline of Louisiana); the links here are useful in my opinion, and the chronological order (in some) is valuable, but these links alone don't warrant their own article in most cases. (In the interest of full disclosure, I have been involved with the OOK Project, but mostly automated or semi-automated work.) Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 03:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. History overviews are done by Timeline of.... These do not aid in navigation. Abductive (reasoning) 04:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of the state-specific information into the "Outline of State" lists, but do not include the non-state specific links (Cold war, Vietnam war, etc). -- Quiddity (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Disclosure/pointer: I'm a part of the Outline Project, and have suggested to Transhumanist and Buaidh a few times previously that these particular outlines are a step too far, and should perhaps be renamed/merged into "Timeline of X" lists (as should Territorial evolution of California). Also, I am contributing to the RfC draft concerning "navigational pages" and "outlines" at User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft‎, currently.) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and transfer less relevant portions: I started these articles as the "Historical outline of state" with a very limited scope of providing a brief outline of major topics impacting the history of each U.S. state. The WikiProject Outline of Knowledge incorporated these articles and expanded the scope to include all articles relevant to the history of each state. I think it would be a shame to scuttle this entire series. I hope these articles can instead transfigure into a more useful series that provides easy access to important and relevant historical articles. (P.S – As a school boy in Texas more than 50 years ago, I learned that La Louisiane has an ancient and impressive history that does not end at state borders.) Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sorry to say this to those who worked on these, but I think they should all be deleted, per nom, since they are content forks. DVD 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just looked through some of these and they are awful. A complete mess, full of errors, mistakes, bias and omissions. They should take people to the actual "history of" articles which include discussion and context--Teaearlygreyhot (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide an example of your claim? The ones I've reviewed have no discernable bias, and the omissions are mostly likely from a lack of knowledge of the state history by the author. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd just like to point out that "lack of knowledge of the state history by the author" seems like a pretty good reason not to create an outline in the first place. Katr67 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What if knowledgeable authors fixed them up? That can certainly happen in a place like this... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or transform into navboxes. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Outline of <state> for the same reasons listed above. Tavatar (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2009 (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.